War is Madness | A Stoic Warning to the World

Man, naturally the gentlest class of being, is not ashamed to revel in the blood of others, to wage war, and to entrust the waging of war to his sons, when even dumb beasts and wild beasts keep the peace with one another. The ancient Greeks and Romans were pretty familiar with the phenomenon of warfare. Through violent confrontations, they expanded their empires and protected the outskirts from invasions by enemies, like the Persians in the East and the Germanic tribes in the North.

The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, for example, fought many wars during his time in reign while still trying his best to follow Stoic teachings and to live well. History shows that Stoics weren’t pacifists, as in that they abstained from violence. But in ancient Stoic literature, we do find objections against war. This video explores ancient Stoic opinions on war and why they opposed it.

Even though one of the greatest warlords in history, Marcus Aurelius didn’t take a clear ethical stance towards what Seneca called “the much-vaunted crime of slaughtering whole peoples.” He did mention his high esteem of philosophers like Diogenes and Socrates as opposed to warlords like Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, whose fate he described as “nothing but anxiety and enslavement.” He also mentioned that even though they might have believed they were immortal, deciding the fate of so many people by killing and destroying, they were also themselves subject to death. But nowhere in his writing did Marcus Aurelius explicitly disapprove of warfare, possibly because it was one of his duties.

However, the accounts of Seneca and Epictetus do show clear arguments against war, which explain its insanity and why its roots lie in ignorance. We’ll start with the writings of Seneca. The act of taking another person’s life is a crime in most countries. We’re eager to punish those who commit murder, as we consider these people a threat to society and their actions deeply wrong. In some cases, committing murder leads to the death penalty; in other cases, a prison sentence.

By and large, there seems to be a consensus among the people that homicide and murder are serious crimes. And why could this be the case? Isn’t it because we generally consider human life valuable? So, Seneca reasons, how come when a general carries out these crimes in times of war, they’re praised? I quote: “We are mad, not only individually, but nationally. We check manslaughter and isolated murders; but what of war and the much-vaunted crime of slaughtering whole peoples?

There are no limits to our greed, none to our cruelty. And as long as such crimes are committed by stealth and by individuals, they are less harmful and less portentous; but cruelties are practised in accordance with acts of senate and popular assembly, and the public is bidden to do that which is forbidden to the individual.” End quote. Then, Seneca argues that even dumb and wild beasts keep the peace with one another, while human beings seem to easily engage in all kinds of atrocities when war is upon them; the latter he called “widespread madness.”

Seneca further elaborates on why he believes war is madness. In the book Physical Science, he explains how people set sail to other places, facing thunder and whirlwinds, meeting with uncertainty and the chance of dying without burial, just to meet the risks of the quest of war. Such slaughter generally results in heavy losses on the conqueror’s side, the destruction of cities, and the death of innocent civilians. In most cases, people don’t even know the enemy they’re destroying.

I quote: “But what can one call it but plain insanity actually to carry destruction in your train, to rush in anger against men you never saw, to lay waste without provocation all that comes in your path, and, after the fashion of wild beasts, to kill a man you do not hate?” End quote. Even though modern warfare is different from ancient times, and it’s much easier to travel to warzones through modern transportation, we can still reflect on the question: what drives us into the insanity of engaging in such cruel slaughter and mutual destruction we call ‘war?’

Especially now, when, unlike the ancient people, humanity today can wipe out the whole planet by pushing a button. Why would people do something like that? Why would we destroy what took nature billions of years to build, including our own species? Have we lost our minds? Despite Seneca’s condemning words, he does not exactly explain why people engage in warfare.

Epictetus, however, provides us with an answer. Why would a thief steal a garment from a store? She probably thinks that possessing that piece of cloth is in her interest. And why does a tyrant decide to take someone’s land? Perhaps because he believes he benefits from doing so. Epictetus believed that civil commotions, tyrannies, conspiracies, and war, originate from people’s attachment to their own interests.

Attachment to one’s interest, which we could also call ‘selfishness,’ can destroy even the strongest of bonds. For example, Epictetus tells us the story of two brothers named Eteocles and Polynices. How come even though they lived together, ate and drank together, had the same parents, they ended up in a quarrel and killed each other as a result? This quarrel was about power over the throne of Thebes, and the brothers fought over it like dogs over a piece of meat, stated Epictetus.

When someone’s interest is more important than the well-being of one’s sibling, then the sibling could become an impediment to acquiring one’s interest, which happened to Eteocles and Polynices. Isn’t it madness to kill one’s sibling for power? And, in the case of war, isn’t it absurd to kill thousands if not millions for one’s own profit?

Epictetus points out that all the things people wage war over are not worthy of all the devastating consequences. For example, is it worth losing thousands of lives over one woman? The Spartan King Menelaus thought so after the Trojan prince Paris claimed his wife Helen and refused to return her. Is it worth fighting over land expansion or acquiring resources or honor?

From a Stoic point of view, these things are externals and not in our control and, thus, inferior to the things in our control. We’ll eventually lose the land we gained, a spouse can die of illness any day, and honor ultimately lies in the hands of those who grant it to us. And even the greatest warlords in history will eventually be forgotten, and their short lives were filled with violence and fear. And not just their lives: the lives of many innocent beings as well.

So, all these things people fight over are unreliable and transient. And these fights cause a lot of suffering. Why chase these inferior things if we could instead chase truly important things that are totally within our reach? According to Epictetus, people should strive to maintain “the character of fidelity, modesty, patience, abstinence, active cooperation, and observing relations.

But, instead, we want external things. I quote: “For that is not a principle of human nature which makes them bite one another, and abuse one another, and occupy deserted places or public places, as if they were mountains, and in the courts of justice display the acts of robbers; nor yet that which makes them intemperate and adulterers and corrupters, nor that which makes them do whatever else men do against one another through this one opinion only, that of placing themselves and their interests in the things which are not within the power of their will.” End quote.

So, we could say that desiring the spoils of war, whether it’s acquiring land and resources or expanding power and influence, is a selfish pursuit of things that are, ironically, not in our power. By pursuing our selfish needs at the expense of other people’s lives, we also grasp for inferior and weak things. We exchange tremendous amounts of pain and suffering for transient and unreliable things and thus make an unworthy prize for all the toil that preceded it.

Marcus Aurelius correctly mentioned that empires come and go, which has been true before and long after his death. How long does an emperor enjoy the thing he paid for with the blood of thousands, before he goes senile or dies, or before he sets his eye on something else? Is it truly worth it to sacrifice all those soldiers, kill all those innocent civilians, just to fulfill one’s political ambitions, purely based on opinions of how the world should be?

Isn’t the destruction of cities and the displacement of millions just to appease the fantasies of a few individuals the definition of madness? Thank you for watching.