What is our moral sphere?

“Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world” says Jordan Peterson in his famous book 12 Rules for Life. The principle, no. 6. on his list, has received quite a lot of attention. Rightfully so, since it nails down a key ethical question, not just in Stoicism but in human life in general. What is it that we ought to do? What should be the proper field of our moral action? “Our own house,” i.e., the private and individual domain? Or maybe “the world”, i.e., the vast panorama of social and political activity? That is the question!

A very stoic one, to boot. A common stereotype is that Stoicism is all about focusing on the little things, on the individual life and personal fate. “Big things” are out of our control, so we need to scale down the scope of our interest and meddle with the tiny stuff that we can control. Superficial reading of the Dichotomy of Control leads to this conclusion – and it seems quite convincing.

The conservative misinterpretation

And yet this is – in my view – a misunderstanding. I call it “the conservative misinterpretation of Stoicism” and in my books and other works I substantiate this position at length. Peterson’s reasoning offers an opportunity though, to make some further interesting points.

Can we ever know that our house is tidied perfectly enough?

First off: we will never know if our house is tidied up perfectly enough. There is no criterion, no indicator for that. And this is neither a technicality nor a formality. This is the nub of the matter!

If we adopt Peterson’s principle, we will never be permitted to move on. The entire concept of “setting order in your house first” is just an excuse, an elaborate way of saying “you are never allowed to criticize the world”. If we ever speak up and voice objections about the state of affairs, anyone may blurt out “but your house is still a mess!”. And there will be no good reply to that.

If, instead of a decision, we make it a conditional, e.g., “if we do so and so, only then we can we express our doubts about the world as such,” then we get one result only – we will remain silent forever.

The only possible way

The only productive way of thinking here is to view this as an autonomous decision we must make. Are we even interested in criticizing (or changing) the world? This is a moral and political question that’s on us. If the answer is affirmative, then we must work up both realms simultaneously. We must be sorting out our own household and expressing our views about the world at the same time. That’s the only way it’s even possible. The whole idea of waiting until some condition is met is misplaced. If, instead of a decision, we make it a conditional, e.g., “if we do so and so, only then can we can express our doubts about the world as such,” then we get one result only – we will remain silent forever.

In other words, Peterson’s principle hushes everyone. Following him amounts to unilaterally waiving our right to criticize the world. After all, how can you be sure if your house is tidy enough? You can never be certain – and that is the point. Peterson doesn’t care whether our house is “in order” or not. What he truly implies is that we are never in a position to criticize the world, let alone change it.

Is that acceptable to Stoicism? My standpoint is that it isn’t. Often times we won’t be able to have an impact on the grand worldly affairs, that’s true. But why relinquish that right in principle? That’s not the Stoic message at all!

Seneca says that the world stays open to the Stoic sage and that the perspectives are boundless for his virtuous actions. This is precisely one of the reasons we pursue the Stoic path: to keep our perspectives open, regardless of the circumstances. One career or walk of life are closed to us? Then we may pick another one. Becker emphasizes that there are much more ways of Stoic life than it is usually conceived. This might be nicely explained using the old-as-hills metaphor of the world as a stage. We, humans, are actors, and we need to play our parts. Yet nothing in this picture mandates that these parts must be in favour of the status quo! Inventors, rebels and social reformers are – after all – very human parts to play.

Dr. Piotr Stankiewicz, Ph.D., is a writer and philosopher, and promoter of reformed Stoicism. He authored Manual of Reformed Stoicism, and Does Happiness Write Blank Pages?

---