Examining Seneca’s account of friendship produces an interpretative puzzle: if the good of the Stoic sage is already both complete and self-sufficient, how can friendship be a good? I reject the solution that friendship is simply a preferred indifferent instead of a good and argue that though Seneca’s account can consistently explain both why friendship’s nature as a good does not threaten the completeness or the self-sufficiency of the sage, Stoic friends must choose between intimate friendships that leave them vulnerable (...) or impersonal friendships that lack intimacy but do not undermine their happiness. The consistent Stoic must choose the latter, but I argue that this conflict shows why we ought to reject the Stoic model of friendship. (shrink)

— Étant donné que le stoïcisme prône un total détachement à l’égard des êtres qui leur sont chers, l’auteur s’est interrogé sur les fondements de la philanthropie dans le nouveau stoïcisme. La philanthropie stoïcienne trouve en premier lieu sa source dans l’amour de la nature qui s’illustre par un souci de soi exclusif et une socialité naturelle. Le deuxième fondement découle d’un point de vue théologique. Les hommes sont parents entre eux grâce à la relation qu’ils ont avec Dieu par (...) le logos divin. Le troisième fondement est d’origine politique. L’individu est respecté en tant que partie du tout universel. Il ne s’agit jamais d’un amour de l’autre pour sa bonté personnelle. Cette ambivalence de la philanthropie stoïcienne s’illustre par rapport à l’esclavage et à la gladiature. Les stoïciens ne s’opposent pas à l’esclavage en tant que tel, mais aux entraves de la liberté intérieure. De même, ils ne souhaitent pas l’abolition de la gladiature. L’essentiel est de se vaincre soi-même et de se soumettre à la Fortune selon le sort qu’elle nous a assigné.— The author investigates the foundations of philanthropy in late Stoicism, granted the Stoic sanction of total detachment from the objects of love. Stoic philanthropy is primarily grounded in a love of nature which expresses itself in an exclusive concern for oneself and a natural sociality. It finds its second source in a theological perspective. Human beings are related because of the relationship that they have with God by the divine logos. Its third source is political in origin. The individual is respected as a part of the universal whole. Love of another for his own goodness never comes into play. As a result, Stoic philosophy appears ambivalent in the case of slaves and gladiators. Stoics are not opposed to slavery as such, but to interference with interior freedom. Likewise, late Stoicism doesn’t advocate the abolition of the gladiatorial system. Victory over oneself and submission to Fortune and one’s lot are what counts. (shrink)

In recent decades "virtue ethics" has become an accepted theoretical structure for thinking about normative ethical principles. However, few contemporary virtue ethicists endorse the commitments of the first virtue theorists---the ancient Greeks, who developed their virtue theories within a commitment to eudaimonism. Why? I believe the objections of modern theorists boil down to concerns that eudaimonist theories cannot properly account for two prominent moral requirements on our treatment of others. ;First, we think that the interests and welfare of at least (...) some others ought to give us non-instrumental reason for acting---that is, reason independent of consideration of our own welfare. Second, we think others are entitled to what we might call respect, just in virtue of their being persons. Eudaimonist accounts either cannot account for these intuitions at all, or they give the wrong sort of account. ;My dissertation assesses the resources of eudaimonism to meet these lines of criticism. Chapter 2, 3, and 4 survey the views of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, to discover insights that are important for a successful response. In Chapters 5 and 6, I offer my own account, based on what I call empathic identification. This is the habit or disposition of seeing things, in effect, through the eyes of others. Empathic identification is a process through which the interpersonal transmission of reasons for actions between persons becomes possible. I argue first that our interest in our own eudaimonia justifies us in identifying empathically with others as a general habit or disposition. Second, I argue that empathic identification explains our intuitions about the respect others are due. So empathic identification generates the right sort of explanation of our intuitions about the constraints others and their interests impose upon us after all, and renders eudaimonist virtue ethics a viable form of ethical theory. (shrink)