3. What rationale can Epictetus have for saying that one should not be upset if members of your family die? / Application: What can Epictetus teach you that can help you deal with a terrorist attack on someplace close that kills a friend or family member?
One of the overarching themes of the Enchiridion is the acceptance of those things which one cannot control. Epictetus lists death as one of those uncontrollable eventualities, stating that “if you are averse to illness or death or poverty, you will meet misfortune” and recommending for us to “detach [our] aversion from everything not up to us” (2). For Epictetus, the only things under our control are our opinions, impulses, desires, and aversions - the things we actually do, influence, or act upon. In the case of a terrorist attack where a loved one dies, where the attack is outside of the things we can control, Epictetus teaches that we should detach ourselves from aversion to the resulting deaths and accept them as a result of ‘nature,’ because “death is nothing dreadful” (5) and only our judgment and personal emotional proximity to the thing is what upsets us.
In a strange turn, Epictetus’s philosophy seems like it advocates for the possibility of more murder in society. “When you do something that you determine is to be done, never try not to be seen doing it, even if most people are likely to think something bad about it… if you are doing it rightly, why do you fear those who will criticize you wrongly?” (35) In this, Epictetus states that as long as you deem an action necessary, it should be done. Epictetus states in 42 “When someone acts badly toward you or speaks badly of you, remember that he does or says it in the belief that it is appropriate for him to do so.” Since Chapter 27 states that “…nothing bad by nature happens in the world,” and the determination of whether an action should be performed falls solely on the person performing the action, is it possible to rationalize actions like violence and murder? Does Epictetus’s philosophy allow for more violence and murder?
In a weird way, I could also see Epictetus's line of justice rationalizing the whole idea behind an eye-for-an-eye. From Hammurabi, so many societies have stood behind the validity of murder for murder. We even see it today with the death penalty. Given that a person buys into these ideals--which people have and some still do--they could potentially rationalize using murder as retaliation and an exponential cycle of killing could occur, with each party validating their actions.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that Epictetus necessarily advocates for retaliation as a justification for murder. In stoicism, everything that isn't under your direct control is up the 'nature,' and reacting to nature is something that Epictetus discourages (i.e. we shouldn't be sad when a loved one dies, because it's just 'nature'). The quote from 42 drives this point home by stating that we shouldn't judge people who act badly toward us because we have to assume that they consider their actions justified. So, retaliation isn't really a justification for murder, in line with an "eye for an eye." However, if murder can be justified outside of retaliation (if murder wouldn't be reactionary in anyway), then it could be justified. The only criteria set down for right and wrong is whether or not an action is under one's direct control.
Delete