In Stoicon 2018, I made a profoundly political claim when I said that the four virtues of courage, justice, self-control, and wisdom were the very foundation of sustainable development, if by this term we meant: 

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 

My claim is a political one because this kind of vision requires international cooperation to come into fruition. Progressing towards a sustainable existence is not as “simple” as improving the way in which you personally respond to your own emotions and matters beyond your control. It is much more complicated because whilst we can individually deal with our own anger or the repercussions of losing loved ones, our ability to combat climate breakdown or plastic pollution very much depends on the collective response of billions. At the same time, how we choose to personally deal with such matters has political implications because our choices (including the refusal to make them) impacts the lives of others, most of whom we will never meet. 

Following my presentation at Stoicon, many people have asked me whether Stoics are political. Some have argued that political issues are beyond our control and therefore have nothing to do with Stoicism. Which is the correct position? 

I have always maintained that Stoics are necessarily political, just not aligned with either the left or right, regardless of their respective arguments. It is also very clear to me that striving for virtue requires that we stand up against the wrongs of the world, no matter who is responsible for them. Taking a political stance when justice is on the line is a profoundly Stoic thing to do. Doing nothing in the face of injustice is not taking a neutral position. It is siding with the unjust! 

The Stoic call to rise up against injustice is personified in the actions of Thrasea Paetus, a Stoic who Epictetus very much admired and held up as an excellent example for his students to follow. Thrasea was a Roman senator who refused to serve Nero if doing so contradicted the four virtues. Much to Nero’s ire, Thrasea refused to join the other senators who praised the Emperor for murdering his own mother. When Nero tried to get the Senate to unjustly execute someone, Thrasea spoke up and stopped him. When Nero attempted to have his wife deified, again Thrasea held tight to his personal principles, effectively drawing a bull’s eye on his own back. Time and time again, Thrasea made it clear that he was loyal to his Stoic principles not those of a madman. He also made it clear that personal actions carry political consequences. 

Does Thrasea sound like a Stoic who would shirk his responsibility behind the excuse “it’s beyond my control”? Does he demonstrate in any way that getting involved in political matters is an anti-Stoic position? Does his example convey to us that we should shy away from having a political position when it comes to virtuous and vicious acts? Do his actions support a conviction to shrug bad behavior off as an indifferent? If you answered no to any (or all) of these questions, then clearly Stoicism is political. 

A more interesting set of questions 

This leads us to a far more interesting set of questions. What is in my control? What am I concerned about politically? And, what can I do about it? 

---

Kai Whiting is a researcher and lecturer in sustainability and Stoicism based at the University of Lisbon, Portugal. He Tweets @kaiwhiting and blogs over at 

 

 

---