Stoicism and the Demands of JusticeStoicism and the Demands of JusticeStoicism is attractive because it gives people a sense of control over their lives. If one is able to adhere strictly to admonitions of a philosopher such as Epictetus, then it is quite plausible that one might be able to find happiness, regardless of any dire or painful situation which one might experience. Epictetus implores us to focus only on that which we can control, which are our thoughts and reactions to events, and to not worry about that which we cannot control, which are the external events which impinge upon us. While many might take comfort in this philosophy, it is ultimately unsatisfying because it cannot meet the demands of justice. I argue that Stoicism works more as a how-to-guide in dealing with particular events, which can be helpful as a palliative measure, but it cannot deal with the human demand for justice.
I carry out this examination of Epictetus’s stoic philosophy by first outlining the more important elements of his thought. There will be those who object to my stance that Stoicism cannot sufficiently satisfy the demands of justice by claiming that happiness is the ultimate aim of life. The so-called demands of justice, which I say require action, do not necessarily lead to happiness. Therefore, the purported need that I find in seeking out justice does not invalidate Stoicism as a philosophy nor does my claim lead to happiness. I will then address this objection. I do not claim Stoicism is invalid in helping suffering at the moment, just that its weakness lies in being unable address larger issues such as justice in a satisfactory way. Lastly, I examine the works of Ta-Nehisi Coates and Primo Levi to show how it is the case that Stoicism might be able to help the individual through the horrible conditions these two writers describe, but it is insufficient to meet the demands of justice that would seemingly be irrational not to pursue.
For the purposes of this paper, I define justice as access to equal political and social opportunities irrespective of individual differences that individuals might have. In order for this type of justice to mean anything, it has to be universally applied, meaning that the standards which we establish must be applied to all people. In the instances where justice is violated, meaning that people are not given fair and equal treatment, then the perpetrators of the injustice must be stopped and, perhaps, punished. Typically, if a person is committing an injustice it acts as an external event on the recipient. For example, if I am at my workplace and my boss harasses me by insulting my looks, by sexual orientation, or the color of my skin, these are not events that I brought upon myself. The cause of the trouble I am experiencing is external. It will be important to remember this when I examine the basic tenets of Epictetus’s philosophy and his advice for living a life of happiness and freedom.
The Problem
Let me begin by stating that, in the case of Epictetus’ view and the views of many eminent Christians, social inequality is usually a symptom of a fundamental social problem. Social inequality in itself is not an insurmountable problem. For it is always a symptom of the condition and, therefore, cannot be reduced to a cause of social inequality. What may be termed the social inequalities of contemporary Western society, which are described as a result of human social development, are not necessarily caused by, or constitutive of, a lack of personal growth (the concept of personal growth is often misunderstood).
As a matter of fact, in the current form of Western society, when we are talking about human, economic, and political development, there is an infinite amount of social progress not through a simple change of sex or race, but through a variety of factors and causes. One of the most visible and fundamental social inequalities the West has ever had to deal with is the status of women over men. This is especially clear for women, because they are much more likely to be impoverished under a status that places many of them under economic disadvantage and is a source of social insecurity. As a result, “women” have fewer opportunities to gain any personal skills whatsoever, and the conditions under which women are forced into working as domestic servants are much higher and often more precarious than in earlier times when they themselves have many opportunities for social advancement to satisfy the needs of their husbands and young children.
The problem starts, of course, with women whose lives have been shaped by these factors and whose expectations regarding those social positions continue to vary. The poor or the impoverished must find an equal place in the human community in order to be able to achieve what most people expect of them. Because the poor and the poor have been disadvantaged in our society, not only because of their own lack of social positions but also because the women of their societies have sought a position of power and position of advantage in order to get ahead in the face of their husbands and their children, women in Western societies are also expected to participate in and participate in the production of sexual materials and the transmission of material to and from women, but they also take the position of “glorifier” in order to control the people and the institutions that exist for those persons. This is one consequence of the fact that in all kinds of societies that are not based on equality (such as our modern societies), in our societies where man and woman can live separately, one gender role is held by the male dominated by the other male. Moreover, in Western culture, the role of men in the production of art (the work of art) is always subordinate to one of the other men as a woman and, in this way, the role is often subordinate to the other man in his social position. Women are, therefore, expected to do women’s work first, not to create or distribute (or provide art) for them as men, and that was the norm for so long as men were regarded as important. Finally, the woman’s goal in many modern societies (not in all societies) is to secure her position as a human being through material, psychological, economic, and legal privileges that also benefit the men and women involved (and that makes them especially important for people of other genders, for example). This is one result of the fact that the current social development under which Western men and women live is not based on the right-to-life of the individual men or women, but upon the right-to-produce of the individual women in order to secure the economic and social conditions for the women.
This is quite different from the fact that in Western societies where men are seen as the primary actors in creating the social arrangements that provide material for women, and where women’s roles are increasingly taken for granted by men, the “Glorifier” is always a male, and not only is he a “Glorinator” of the social