Stoic Views on Value

In EN 1096a2, Aristotle maintains that no one would call a virtuous person happy if she were suffering great misfortunes, except to defend a “philosopher’s paradox.” The Stoics, however, embrace this paradox by insisting that virtue is sufficient for happiness. But unlike Aristo and his followers, they also hold that so-called external goods, while not choiceworthy in themselves, do have a kind of value in that they are to be preferred to their opposites. However, it remains to be seen whether the Stoics can consistently maintain these two views of value without their position collapsing into either the Aristotelian view or the view of Aristo. It is this tension that Cicero highlights in the dilemma he poses to Cato in De Fin. III.10-12. I will argue that Cato’s subsequent attempt to reconcile these two commitments ultimately fails.

Cato states that what is valuable is that which is “either itself in accordance with nature, or brings about something that is” (III.20) and that the only things worth choosing are things that are valuable. He then describes “appropriate actions” as being impulses directed towards selecting what is in accordance with nature: initially as infants we seek to preserve our own existence, but as we become able to exercise our reason we see an overall order and pattern in the world that we come to seek for its own sake. Thus, we discover that acting virtuously, i.e. acting in accordance with the order and pattern of nature, is the only thing that is truly valuable and thus truly choiceworthy. Virtue is necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia, and all else is indifferent. But of the things that are indifferent, some such as health and beauty are in accordance with nature, and are thus to be preferred over their opposites such as sickness. It seems to me as though Cato is saying that virtue is the only thing we need in order to be happy, but if we are presented with the option of either having or not having certain external goods, we will take those things that are in accordance with nature. So, the Stoic sage will not go out of his way to obtain health and money, but if they happen to come his way he will not reject them. This view of virtue, taken with the Stoic belief that virtue is within our power, shows that for the Stoics happiness is something that is completely within our power, and not dependent on things such as external goods that are often beyond our control.

Cato sees the potential difficulty in making a distinction between what is to be chosen and what is to be selected, and at III.22-24 he tries to illustrate how the Stoics can maintain this distinction while still maintaining that virtue is the only thing that is ultimately valuable. His example of archery is rather confused (why else does the archer practice his craft, if not for the sake of hitting the mark?) but his examples of acting and dancing seem to work better, since they accord somewhat with his account of virtue in that the craft is practiced for its own sake, and not for the sake of some external object. But even dancing and acting are not perfect examples, Cato says, because their success can depend partially on what is outside of the dancer’s or actor’s control, such as the audience’s reaction.

However, it seems to me that the distinction between what is choiceworthy and what is selected cannot be consistently maintained. Earlier in III.20 Cato stated that what is in accordance with nature is valuable, and thus choiceworthy. But at III.44, Cato admits that health has some value, although he does not admit that it is a “good.” He seems to be saying that the value of heath and the value of virtue are different in kind, even if his comparisons of them at III.45 seem to imply a difference in degree. But he is faced with a dilemma: either health is in fact in accordance with nature, and thus is valuable and choiceworthy, or else it is not choiceworthy, and thus can be neither valuable nor in accordance with nature, and thus there would be no grounds for preferring it to sickness. As it is, Cato seems to want to say that health is both in accordance with nature, and yet not choiceworthy, which is inconsistent with his own stated system of value.