In the third and final part of Chris Gill’s important new book, Learning to Live Naturally, we are examining ways in which Stoicism can contribute to contemporary ethical theories. Last week, in our study of Chapter 6, we contrasted Stoicism with Aristotelianism, finding that the internal coherence, moral rigor, and psychological holism that characterize Stoicism can be a welcome corrective to some gaps in contemporary (Aristotelian and non-Aristotelian) virtue ethics.
This week we will turn to a different, perhaps more urgent set of contemporary issues surrounding the environment, including climate breakdown and ecosystem disruption. In Chapter 7, Gill discusses two prominent features of Stoicism that strengthen its position in the contemporary philosophical landscape: its stance on human nature and the natural world. Both are important and deserve careful attention. However, since we’ve focused extensively on human nature in previous posts, I’m choosing to concentrate on the sections regarding environmentalism.
As a philosophy of life, Stoicism has plenty to say about how we interact with the natural world. The Stoic goal of life—living in agreement with nature—encompasses both human and cosmic nature, and this is in more than just a metaphorical sense:
To put the point in very broad terms, Stoic ethics suggest that living a happy life is not just a matter of living the best possible human life, but also doing so in a way that reflects the place of human beings in the larger natural world. More precisely, locating human nature in a broader natural framework is one of the ways in which Stoic ethics characterizes happiness and the development towards happiness. This idea, by itself, renders the Stoic ethical framework helpful for modern environmental concerns.
p. 298
As we explored in Chapter 3 of Learning to Live Naturally, the ancient Stoics placed great emphasis on our relationship to the natural world. And while some aspects of their thought on this topic need to be jettisoned (for example, Chrysippus believed other animals exist merely for the sake of humans), other aspects are quite valuable and can form the framework of a solid contemporary environmental ethic.
In this chapter, Gill outlines several ways that Stoicism integrates and informs environmental concerns. As always in this series of posts, I can’t possibly do justice to the depth and richness of his argument here. Rather than trying to offer a comprehensive summary, I’ve selected two primary points that I think will be useful for all practicing Stoics. After all, this topic is essential for those of us trying to live a good life, since caring for our world is one of our most important responsibilities. We’ll look at these two points:
Integrating environmental thinking into virtue
From anthropocentric to biocentric to logocentric
Integrating environmental thinking into virtue
In looking at how an ancient philosophy like Stoicism can accommodate 21st century issues like sustainability, we might start by asking how environmental care would fit into virtue ethics in the first place. This is exactly the question considered by Neo-Aristotelian virtue ethicist Rosalind Hursthouse: do new virtues need to be introduced to account for environmental care, or can existing virtues be adapted?
Hursthouse suggests that new virtues, such as respect for nature or wonder at natural beauty, are needed to encourage pro-environmental behavior. Gill, on the other hand, proposes that a better approach is applying the four cardinal virtues through an environmental lens. Referring to the environmental dimension of virtue with the prefix e- (as in e-virtue), he explains that “the Stoic framework suggests that an e-action is the result of the whole virtue set, exercised in an e-way” (p. 296). Rather than seeing environmental thinking as a separate virtue, in Stoicism it is part and parcel of virtuous action:
The Stoic account gives a fuller picture of how e-virtue works, by examining the component aspects of e-virtue and their interconnection. The Stoic analysis conveys more effectively what is, in many cases, involved in e-action, especially in responding as an individual to the complex demands of climate breakdown. What is required is the expression of a co-ordinated set of virtues, mapping the different aspects of human action and experience, but working to a single overall objective, in this respect at least.
p. 296
Hursthouse also raises the issue of ethical-environmental development. In classic Aristotelian fashion, she believes that such virtues should be cultivated in children through education and habituation. From a Stoic perspective, however, we would see the growth of environmental awareness and responsibility as part of our lifelong process of ethical development (oikeiosis). Responding to the question of e-development, Gill reminds us that the Stoic theory of oikeiosis has plenty of room for environmental concerns. When a person learns to see climate change as an important issue, they will adjust their attitude and actions to help mitigate the problem, even if personal sacrifices are required.
From anthropocentric to ecocentric to logocentric
As we briefly covered in Chapter 3 of Learning to Live Naturally, the ancient Stoics had a very distinctive way of looking at the cosmos. In their view, the universe is an organic whole, infused with divine breath, and every part of the universe—from gods and humans to animals, plants, and even stones and other material objects—shares in this divine nature. As such, all aspects of nature participate in the inherent goodness of the universe, whose features include order, structure, wholeness, and rationality:
The Stoic viewpoint ascribes intrinsic value (goodness) to the universe and world, taken as wholes; it also ascribes value to the elements within the universe and world, in so far as they form integral parts of these wholes (in Stoic terms, they are objects of nature’s providential care). In particular, the Stoic worldview reinforces the standpoint of those modern environmentalists who emphasize the importance of maintaining existing, but threatened, natural systems, involving different but interdependent forms of natural entity. Thus, reference to the Stoic worldview can support the idea of placing value on bio-diversity, or maintaining ecosystems, and of doing so for their own sake, not just for human use.
p. 302
At the same time, some aspects of ancient Stoic thought are not eco-friendly and would certainly seem retrograde or offensive today. In the “hierarchy” of nature, humans are at the top, which had the unfortunate consequence of supporting the following beliefs (from pp. 302-303):
“the universe, and world, are shaped for the benefit of human beings, rather than other animals or plants.”
“human beings are entitled to use other animals as well as other natural resources for their own benefit.”
“although human beings should act justly towards any other human being, including those falling outside our own community, considerations of justice have no place in our relationships with other animals.”
These anthropocentric views definitely have no place in the Stoicism of today. We will want to discard the anthropocentric aspects in favor of the ecocentric worldview of the ancient Stoics. So how can we reconcile the best of Stoic physics (the ecocentric view) with our urgent need for an environmentally-sensitive philosophy of life? Can we throw out the unattractive aspects while maintaining a coherent naturalistic philosophy?
Gill argues that we can, and that it all rests on a classic Greek concept: rationality. The ancient Stoics didn’t merely assert that humans are superior to other organic entities; they offered arguments for this conclusion. At the heart of their anthropocentric viewpoint was the idea that humans (and gods) are the only entities in the universe to possess rationality, and it is this rationality that entitles humans to dominate other lifeforms and non-organic matter.
Since this “rationality” argument is the linchpin of ancient Stoic anthropocentrism, we can completely remove the anthropocentric angle of Stoicism if we take away the belief that rationality entitles humans to use other animals for their own purposes. Today we have a much more nuanced understanding of ways in which other creatures’ intelligence is perfectly suited to their ecological niche. We also have an appreciation of the special rationality of creatures such as the great apes, cephalopods, birds, and other animals. But even if animals are not rational in the sense that humans are rational, this does not render them inferior, and it does not entitle humans to use them in cruel or unjust ways.
Not only can we remove the anthropocentrism of ancient Stoicism in favor of its more ecocentric principles, but we can also go one step further: we can replace the rationality = superiority argument with the idea that rationality = responsibility. As Gill puts it,
The possession of rationality, to the extent that human beings have this distinctively, confers special responsibilities within the broader economy of nature. Human beings, we might say, have a special responsibility for maintaining the eco-system in a sustainable and coherent way, to enable it to have its natural structure, order, and wholeness. They also have a special role in promoting the welfare and flourishing of other forms of life and the stability of the inanimate elements in the eco-system, such as air and sea. In Stoic terms, human beings as rational animals have a special role in putting into effect universal nature’s providential care for all the elements within the universe and world. Indeed, to the extent that we have distinctive rationality, we have special responsibilities to do this for non-rational animals and the broader natural environment.
p. 305
In this “logocentric” view of the world, our rationality is a gift that enables us to understand the cosmos and our place in it. We are able to recognize the inherent goodness, structure, and order within nature and strive to care wisely for this beautiful treasure. The lessons of the past two millennia have shown us that humans, through misapplying rationality, have the capability of destroying elements of the natural world. It is now up to us to use our rationality responsibly and act as competent, accountable caretakers for the world around us.
Conclusion
I think you’ll agree with me that Gill offers a compelling take on how Stoicism can contribute to contemporary environmental ethics. Stoicism provides a deep, holistic, and innovative perspective lacking in other philosophical systems, including other types of virtue ethics. I sincerely hope that philosophers of all stripes start taking Stoicism seriously as a conversation partner in current environmental and ethical discussions.
Thank you for joining me for this penultimate installment on Learning to Live Naturally, Chris Gill’s ground-breaking new work on Stoicism. Next week is our final post on this remarkable book. We will look at the Modern Stoicism movement that Gill helped found and how it relates to Stoic ethics more generally. I hope you’ll come along for our final assessment of the impact of this book and where Modern Stoicism might be headed in the future. See you then!