Stoicism and the impossibility of social morality

Stoic ethical theory is famously “rigorist” in the sense that it regards all kinds of generally recognized non-moral goods and evils as “indifferents” that do not influence human happiness or misery. One of the problems with rigorism is that prima facie it seems to make impossible even a rudimentary social morality, for if non-moral evils, experienced by the victims of various inhumane actions, actually do them no harm and do not contribute to their being unhappy, then why should we regard the infliction of these evils as morally wrong? In this paper I examine the question of whether such a critique of Stoic rigorism (put forward, for example, by Claudia Card in her book “The Atrocity Paradigm”) is justified. I argue that, on the one hand, one cannot find convincing counterarguments against it within Stoic tradition itself (e.g, the distinction between “preferred” and “rejected” indifferents, in my view, is of no avail for the Stoics in this case), but, on the other, the validity of this criticism depends on what we take to be the ultimate normative standard of moral evaluation. It is only valid under the assumption that some kind of “humanistic consequentialism” (as I call it here) is true. I also try to demonstrate that, if this kind of consequentialism is true, then similar criticism may be applied to many other ethical theories regardless of whether they endorse rigorism or not. (Personally, I believe “humanistic consequentialism” to be true, although I do not argue for this thesis here).