Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 5.22

That which does no harm to the state, does no harm to the citizen.

In the case of every appearance of harm apply this rule: if the state is not harmed by this, neither am I harmed.

But if the state is harmed, you must not be angry with him who does harm to the state. Show him where his error is.

—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 5 (tr Long)

I was confused, from early on, about two specific sorts of behavior that have always seemed to be quite socially acceptable. Age and experience have only made me scratch my head all the more.

First, people will often measure the good in life like a balance sheet of debits and credits. They will commit lesser evils, or permit lesser evils, if they perceive a greater profit from them as a whole. They believe that a smaller wrong is excused by a larger right. The ends justify the means.

Second, people will often assume it is appropriate to hurt the people they think have hurt them. It is completely wrong to do harm, except when harm has already been done, in which case it is a right to do harm in return. They believe that violence is excused as a response to violence. Again, the ends justify the means.

This passage helps me to come to terms with both of these oddities.

First, there can never be any good for the whole at the expense of the part, and there can never be any good for the part at the expense of the whole. It all goes together. At no point should I think that going against Nature supports Nature. It’s a package deal.

Second, there can never be any good for the first fellow at expense of the second fellow, and there can be never be any good for the second fellow at the expense of the first fellow. It all goes together. At no point should I think that going against Nature supports Nature. It’s a package deal.

These actually turn out to be the same issue, just with different expressions. Nothing ever gets better by making it worse.

I can’t say, for example, that I am doing good for the whole community by doing harm to any of its members, and if someone does do harm to the community, I should correct and improve him, instead of hurting him out of vengeance.

Though this has long seemed clear to me, I regularly deal with people for whom the concept seems completely alien.

I once taught at a school where an important administrator would speak regularly about firing employees. Out of frustration, I once simply asked him why he was so keen on the idea of taking away people’s jobs, and whether there might be better ways to solve problems.

“Well, it’s for the good of the school. I care about the school. It’s like a family to me.”

“If your son does something to annoy you, do you kick him out of the family? Is it for the good of the family to hurt some members and not others?”

“Well, that’s different. I have to live with my family! Don’t be stupid!”

I realized there was no point reminding him that we have to live with all of the people around us, not only the ones we prefer.

I suspect that those who think we can dispose of a few for the many, of some for others, are trapped in an attitude of “us” and “them”, of constant conflict, where there really is no awareness of the good of the whole at all.

How wonderful it is that the Stoic must never think of his own benefit in opposition to the benefit of others. For him, these things are one and the same. 

Written in 7/2006