Ancient Stoics believed in cosmopolitanism but not in human rights

What is it about?

The Stoics were the first among ancient Greek philosophers to propose a theory of cosmopolitanism: that the whole world is a state governed by a commmon law with humans and gods as its citizens. But this does not mean that they also believed in something like human rights or the dignity of every human being. Stoics could praise love of humankind while recommending atrocious human rights violations. Often reinforcing social injustice instead of alleviating it, Stoic cosmopolitanism could align itself with any political system and flourished in a hierarchically structured, patriarchic slave society. Stoics did not think in terms of rights, let alone human rights, but we can try to translate our modern concept into something that fits their ethical terms. Maybe they attributed some kind of special value to their fellow citizens of the world state and derived a "human worth obligation" from it: to treat others in such a way that one respects what we nowadays would regard as their human rights? They did not. Virtuous people, the sages, had absolute intrinsic value: they were something good. But their value depended on them having virtue, not the fact that they were human beings. And virtue is not inalienable like dignity and human rights. Sages could even find themselves in a position where they had to forsake their own human rights to maintain their virtue. And respecting sages served not the sages themselves but the others who respected them. A sage could not be harmed and thus needed no protection. All other people, whether adult or child, were regarded as particularly appropriate objects of love just because they were humans and rational beings, even if their reason was not yet perfected like that of the sages. From this, Stoic philosophers derived duties such as refraining from aggression or to be caring and generous to others. But many Stoics also believed that we have a duty to respect property rights and the laws and customs of our society. The problem here is that humans as objects of love are only "preferred indifferents", something with high value but a value that is context-sensitive and competes with other values. Accordingly, duties concerning people compete with all kinds of other duties, like those toward one's country or toward oneself. And so a Stoic could regard it as perfectly rational to brutally torture a convict, wipe out a whole families, the innocent included, or let one's slaves die of hunger to preserve one's inherited property for the next generation.

Featured Image

Photo by Dave Lowe on Unsplash

Photo by Dave Lowe on Unsplash

Why is it important?

The paper challenges the widespread idea that Stoic cosmopolitanism is a precursor to modern human rights discourse. To make the comparison possible, it translates a modern conception of human rights into terms that fit the Stoic ethical system.

Perspectives