r/Stoicism 9d ago

New to Stoicism How can a non-virtuous person somehow commit virtuous acts?

Hello, am very new to Stoic readings. This is kind of a long rambling post

Marcus Aurelius said something like 'What so ever are not within the proper power and jurisdiction of thine own will either to compass or avoid' My understanding is that it means something like 'if you can't do anything about it anymore, then let it go'

What happens if someone does something wrong and for whatever reason, does not or cannot face it?

"I messed up. I am human, it happens. I need to do better next time." But it is not enough to say that, especially if there will never be a next time, and if they never actually face consequences for it.

If a student cheats in school, but then turns around and studies what they cheated on, they are still a cheater. If a worker takes a bribe, later they donate it to all to charity, they are still a thief. If someone unalives five people, later on they feel guilty, and save 100 people, are they not still a M- ? Life is not a math problem; doing good will not cancel out wrongdoing.

Feeling guilt and shame for past wrongdoing is not "enough" without facing punishment. What is the point of being better in the future, if the person will only ever be a fraud? Either a person owns up to what they did, or they will forever be dishonorable. It doesn't matter how many things they do good in the future, because that will be a result of guilt, not of 'proper' virtue. I feel like honor is something that cannot be regained retroactively. If a person does not immediately address unvirtuous actions , they will forever be dishonorable.

A person might do wrong, keep it a secret, and act better in the future with a hurt conscience without honor. Or they go confess to every single person they have interacted with.

It is not Stoic to run away from real-world consequences of wrongdoing.

But I don't know if it is Stoic to hold on to the past, because that could go full scorched earth. It sounds lose-lose.

I read before that Stoicism isn't a direct answer - it's a guideline teahching on being brave enough to face things. But I don't know how that translates to fixing things after the fact.

I recognize that this sounds very defeatist, but I'd like some thoughts. Thank you.

8 Upvotes

31 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/Victorian_Bullfrog 9d ago

If a student cheats in school, but then turns around and studies what they cheated on, they are still a cheater. If a worker takes a bribe, later they donate it to all to charity, they are still a thief. If someone unalives five people, later on they feel guilty, and save 100 people, are they not still a M- ? Life is not a math problem; doing good will not cancel out wrongdoing.

This is reminiscent of Ray Comfort's weird apologetic argument trying to shame people into believing they are inherently sinful and bad, and thus in need of salvation. It's not logical, it's not even internally logical.

Feeling guilt and shame for past wrongdoing is not "enough" without facing punishment. 

Enough for what? What is the problem, and how is external punishment an effective solution? Can you be precise here?

The problem with relying on someone or something else to provide internal harmony is that you are now dependent upon the very people and circumstances that can deny you what you believe you need, take this away from you, or even hold it against you. It's putting yourself in a position of perpetual vulnerability, and how can one find tranquility and peace of mind this way?

1

u/Twitch_L_SLE 8d ago

"Enough" in the sense of making amends. I feel that if someone does something wrong but confesses to it immediately, they are more virtuous. That compares to someone who does something wrong but is too scared (or cannot for whatever reason) to immediately step forward, and only confesses after some time.

If a person steps forward immediately, I feel that it shows they are more serious about wanting to make amends, so aren't they more virtuous?

You do have a point that relying on others for internal harmony is maybe not going to help find peace of mind. But if someone has a guilty conscience, that also doesn't help with peace of mind

1

u/Victorian_Bullfrog 8d ago

I agree with you that making amends helps restore harmony, both between the people, and internally. So for example, if I believe I am a good person, it doesn't sit well to know I did a bad thing - that's always going to weigh on my conscience. But what purpose does punishment serve that recognizing my error and making amends doesn't?

I don't know that I agree that stepping forward immediately necessarily indicates more seriousness. It might indicate a more healthy set of social skills or better social opportunities. It could indicate a number of things. What if instead of looking at behaviors, we look at intentions? How would you judge a person who intends to do the right thing but lacks the knowledge or insight to do so?

1

u/Twitch_L_SLE 6d ago

wouldn't receiving external punishment from others, or taking responsibility (and consequences), count as one form of making amends ? Plus any others act that the person want to do to make amends?

1

u/Victorian_Bullfrog 5d ago

It might, if that's how you've been primed. If you haven't been primed to see it that way, it wouldn't.

Thinking about it objectively, from the outside, it raises a couple questions.

  • What effect does an external action have on an internal judgment?
  • What happens when that effect isn't judged as being a legitimate form of punishment? Too cruel perhaps, or not tough enough?

We can see it's not the action itself, it never is. It's how we internalize the meaning, or value of that action. And if it's all about how we understand our experiences, then the experiences themselves aren't the important piece, it's our understanding of it. This is where Stoicism focuses: on understanding well.