Assertive defense of our communities and ourselves is morally justified and imperative. Nature has loaned us our lives to take care of and protect as a sacred duty. Humans are responsible for their safety. Just as I would not expect another person to take care of my body if I am able, I cannot surrender security to any other. One of the ideas in Stoic philosophy is the unity and fellowship of all humankind. Hierocles taught that each individual could be seen as being inside a series of smaller to larger circles that initially include ourselves and family, then our communities, and finally the entire world. He argued that we should expand the inner circle to include all of humankind. The absolute implementation of this thinking leads to radical pacifism as theological history has shown. Pacifism is irrational and contrary to Nature. It is not a coincidence that pacifism never manifested in a society dependent on violence for survival. This thought is incompatible with social existence. Epictetus taught that life is warfare and that we must fulfill a soldier’s duty. The ideas of being a soldier and expanding love to all humanity are contradictory, and reason will not allow contradictions. Therefore, a strict warrior’s ethos must be emphasized in Stoicism. This thought is implied in the actions of Socrates (a proto-Stoic) in that he stated that he had prepared for his trial and death by never having done an injustice to another human. Socrates did not think that serving his state as a soldier contradicted this statement. Therefore, Socrates did not think that warfare was unjust. Likewise, Marcus Aurelius did not think that his fighting German tribes on the border of the Roman Empire contradicted his beliefs. If it were only up to him, he would not have fought them. The Germans were attacking, and he was fighting back. He was defending his people. So how are we to approach expanding our love to all of humanity? Clearly, this is an ideal state toward which to direct our aspirations. However, day to day, we must extend love as much as is possible and withdraw it and engage in violence in exactly the reverse order of Hierocles’ circles as necessary. The preservation of our inner circles supersedes the expansion of universal love.
Morality is not relative, but it is conditional. It is conditional on the current state of our survival. It is foolish to apply the same ethics in peace time to conditions of war or extreme survival. Many survivors of the holocaust fought with this moral dilemma. The distinction is to take maximum action for survival without betraying another individual or our highest values as much as possible. This is very fluid. Ironically, individuals that were able to maintain an inner sense of self-respect had a greater probability of surviving. Oppressive regimes actively try to undermine this value. Optimists and the morally depraved were doomed in the long run. Epictetus said that we can look to no greater individual destruction than that of trustworthiness, self-respect, and good behavior. If you are faced with fighting for life, value judgements must be made. If you are faced with the unbelievable tragedy of going into a concentration camp or Gulag you are not responsible for the violence of your captors. Therefore, the murder of Holocaust families was not the fault of any Nazi victims. The Nazis were the agents of death. All holocaust survivors were devastated by guilt, and some even committed suicide after survival. They suffered survivor’s guilt. Therefore, we may understand that these individuals were not able to completely integrate their guilt over time. This is not surprising. It is a nearly impossible task. Shame is deadly. It is a critical life skill to utilize shame and negative emotions for our advancement. Our moral dilemmas must be viewed as opportunities. This is the meaning of the Stoic concept of the obstacle is the way.
All just violence must be to achieve the preservation of ourselves, families, and communities. Individuals must respect whoever oppresses them and hold life to be sacred even as it is ended. Violent action must be accomplished with the preservation of honor. To be justified violence must be defensive. Violence must be directed to the preservation of life in the order of our responsibilities, that is in the order of Hierocles’ circles. Preemptive violence is not justified except in the case that is directed against offensive actions that are totally verified and imminent. Morally acceptable preemption is defensive with a time element. However, preemption that is in any way hypothetical is not justified. Cruelty serves no purpose in warfare except as terrorism, and terrorism is unjust. As WWI taught, every casualty had a mother and family that loved them. That is a thought worth meditating on. Humankind is a community, but unfortunately, people’s survival may be threatened by others. Everyone is a part of Nature doing its work, and it may happen that the parts of Nature external to a group may act against that group’s safety. Thus, individuals may become opposing parts of Nature. It is our responsibility to maintain our security even in conflict with these external fragments. The main idea is that all violence must be defensive, limited, and engaged in with honor and reverence.
