Awesome post! Framing tyrants in this light adds depth to situations. Asking what am I really afraid of here from this person is a difficult question and often leads me to reexamine my response and reaction. Thanks!
I don’t think the Stoics used this kind of language, even though they spoke of cosmopolitanism.
Maybe the closest we would get is our obligations towards all other humans that come from being fellow humans, but I don’t recall it ever being defined it a specific list.
It would seem that if Stoics used the term “human rights,” it would apply to internal rather than external factors in our lives - focusing on what can be controlled and accepting what cannot; developing self-control; pursuing virtue as a path to happiness. In contrast, our modern definition of “human rights” seems to primarily focus on external factors which we have little control over.
This is a huge topic in the history of ideas. Suffice to say here: Roman law recognised many sophisticated rights (that's to say, privileges underwritten in law), which influenced later thinkers including medieval ones. In parallel, as Michael writes, Stoic ideas of radical equality - and resistance to tyranny - strongly influenced early-Enlightenment narratives of personal liberty, even 'rights of man' language.
Thanks for sharing. What about our human rights and dignity that the tyrants steal? Are these not internal to us, bearing in mind that dignity is internal and depends on our human rights, which are external?
Thanks Stephanie. The Stoic answer (which you may not find convincing) is that our dignity does not depend on anything external.
The argument for this is that you can’t remove someone’s dignity without their participation. Epictetus might say we have an even better opportunity to showcase our dignity and excellence in these situations.
We admire the people who stood up to evil or tyrants - we don’t think of them as undignified.
In terms of human rights, if these are defined as externals (like a fair trial or due process) then someone can control these things.
But the Stoics wouldn’t say human rights are required for dignity. They might be required for a just society, but not for individual excellence.
Thanks Pamela. The Stoics care a lot about freedom, but they just define it a bit differently. They care less about freedom from the actions of others (which is impossible to enforce completely) but freedom from being compelled or forced to do things by others.
So it’s a kind of internal freedom from fear or desire they are seeking, which is achieved by practicing philosophy, not by controlling others.
Awesome post! Framing tyrants in this light adds depth to situations. Asking what am I really afraid of here from this person is a difficult question and often leads me to reexamine my response and reaction. Thanks!
Glad it was helpful. It’s a good question to ask!
It would be interesting to read the Stoic view of “human rights.” What are human rights, from where do they originate, and who enforces those rights?
Good question Roger.
I don’t think the Stoics used this kind of language, even though they spoke of cosmopolitanism.
Maybe the closest we would get is our obligations towards all other humans that come from being fellow humans, but I don’t recall it ever being defined it a specific list.
It would seem that if Stoics used the term “human rights,” it would apply to internal rather than external factors in our lives - focusing on what can be controlled and accepting what cannot; developing self-control; pursuing virtue as a path to happiness. In contrast, our modern definition of “human rights” seems to primarily focus on external factors which we have little control over.
This is a huge topic in the history of ideas. Suffice to say here: Roman law recognised many sophisticated rights (that's to say, privileges underwritten in law), which influenced later thinkers including medieval ones. In parallel, as Michael writes, Stoic ideas of radical equality - and resistance to tyranny - strongly influenced early-Enlightenment narratives of personal liberty, even 'rights of man' language.
Thanks for sharing. What about our human rights and dignity that the tyrants steal? Are these not internal to us, bearing in mind that dignity is internal and depends on our human rights, which are external?
Thanks Stephanie. The Stoic answer (which you may not find convincing) is that our dignity does not depend on anything external.
The argument for this is that you can’t remove someone’s dignity without their participation. Epictetus might say we have an even better opportunity to showcase our dignity and excellence in these situations.
We admire the people who stood up to evil or tyrants - we don’t think of them as undignified.
In terms of human rights, if these are defined as externals (like a fair trial or due process) then someone can control these things.
But the Stoics wouldn’t say human rights are required for dignity. They might be required for a just society, but not for individual excellence.
So don’t value freedom bc the tyrant can take that away???!
Thanks Pamela. The Stoics care a lot about freedom, but they just define it a bit differently. They care less about freedom from the actions of others (which is impossible to enforce completely) but freedom from being compelled or forced to do things by others.
So it’s a kind of internal freedom from fear or desire they are seeking, which is achieved by practicing philosophy, not by controlling others.