Massimo, thank you for following up on Stockdale. While I disagree with your position on the man, this brought some clarity to your reasoning. There is a fork which must be addressed: professional versus personal ethics. A defense counsel represents their client's interests, even when the client is guilty, and we see this as necessary to preserve a justice system in which all are equal before the law. A soldier serves the interest of the state (not the good, although it is preferred that these align), and we see this as necessary for military effectiveness and inseperable from the the tradition of civilian control over the military.
A survey of history tells us that when soldiers have voted with their feet, they have often voted with their arms as well. The subordination of personal morality to professional ethic is therefore a safeguard of the democratic state. This can create moral dilemmas and Stockdale's dilemma is exemplary of the type.
This begs the counter of Stoic cosmopolitanism and the universality of virtue, which brings us back to the start, asking "what is the benchmark of a Stoic?" Epictetus was a sage, but Marcus Aurelius did not see himself as such. He was a good Emperor, but he was an emperor and understood that his interests were the interests of Rome, il etait l'etat. We look up to Stoics like Marcus Aurelius and Seneca for the way they navigated the moral dilemmas of office and command, even when they did so imperfectly. Indeed, I see a direct parallel between Roman wars to establish defensive buffers on its frontiers with the Monroe doctrine and the doctrine of containment which precipitated American defense of South Vietnam.
Does a lawyer who defends a guilty client commit an immoral act? Perhaps in isolation, yes, and that's why many people avoid that part of the profession. But a fair system of justice extends defense counsel all accused, so we need lawyers who will serve guilty clients. A state has a natural right to defense (how far this right extends is controversial). Therefore the state needs soldiers, and soldiers who don't subordinate themselves to legitimate authority are dangerous to everyone, as the history of Rome itself shows. We therefore have an ethical norm that soldiers serve the legitimate authority of the state so long as their orders are not manifestly unlawful. Stockdale acted within the constraints of that norm.
Respectfully, second guessing Stockdale is precisely your exercise. His awareness of the injustice of the Vietnam war or the injustice of the action at Tonkin does not for me tarnish his value as a human being and how we may learn from him as an exemplary stoic.
Stoic virtue does not suggest that we weigh one key element, for example - Justice, above all others components of virtue. We must balance all as best we can. When we find - in hindsight - we were not correct, we learn, we improve. If Marcus had placed Justice above all other stoic virtues, and second to none, he should not have defended the centuries long corruption and depravities of Rome, including Rome's invasion of the northern "indigenous" peoples - as far north as Austrian Vindobona - who were invaded by Rome for essentially defensive, taxation and commercial reasons. Is the action of Hamas against innocent people in Israel on 11/7 rightly thought of as "justice" because there is some reasonable basis for sympathy with the plight of everyday Palestinians? Certainly not. Will the Israeli response to Hamas fall in the category of "injustice", when thousands or more of innocent non-combatants will most likely die? I would suggest it will rightly not.
Defining the value of what we can learn about stoicism from Stockdale based on subjective perceptions of what constitutes Justice in one context or another is unnecessarily restrictive. Your suggestion that Stockdale as a warrior needed to abandon all his responsibilities and balance Justice over his military duties, the exercise of temperance, and acting with honor as a warrior, oversimplifies and diminishes his dilemma.
Yes, I will compare Socrates to Stockdale. Both were brave warriors. The legacy of Socrates is unfairly glorified and his actual beliefs are likely highly distorted by his student, Plato. No one knows truly were Plato begins and Socrates ends, or the other way around. Or should we say that Socrates is the rightful inventor/propounder/true-believer in the non-sensical, utopian-sounding Republic, soon to be run by unelected authoritarians or academics (and most likely aristocrats or simple thugs) who deem themselves philosopher kings? If so, the world Socrates wanted more closely represents modern leaders of China, even though in China they have not yet successfully outlawed individual liberty, individual freedom, or even for that matter poetry, or all dissent quite yet, but who are still doing the level best. If this is the true Socrates, yes, I will take Stockdale with all his several flaws.
Michael, I respect your opinion. But nobody is second guessing Stockdale. He writes about Tonkin in his biography, and he explicitly says he knew the war started on false pretense. You mention all the Stoic virtue except the crucial one in this context: justice. Stockdale acted unjustly, and knowingly so. That’s not what I except from a role model.
As for Seneca and Marcus. Nobody brings up Seneca as a role model. And I don’t think Marcus could have avoided defense frontier wars. Besides, as I explain in my recent article on presentism, it is a mistake to project our current ethical standards back two millennia. But Stockdale didn’t live in the first or second century, so it’s fair to evaluate him according to modern standards. There, he clearly failed.
Also, it is irrelevant whether you or I would do better than Stockdale. Neither you nor I have ever been brought up as role model. In Stoicism a role model is pretty close to a sage. Think of Seneca’s praise of Cato, or Epictetus’s regard for Socrates. Do you really want to compare Stockdale to Socrates?
It is remarkable Massimo that you fail to understand Stockdale's journey, and how he was a better stoic than you or I could hope to be. His guide in understanding stoicism was Epictetus, who understood and wrote that a soldier's life is a life of service, and if you neglect, decline, or shun that duty of loyalty, service and responsibility when some severe, or even unfair, order is laid upon you, you will condemn your army to a pitiful and desperate state. Many unjust acts were committed in the Vietnam war. Second-guessing what Stockdale "Knew" and "When he knew it" is an academics parlor game. Did Marcus not brutally order the combined deaths of thousands of his men and those of his enemies? Was there no other way for him to faithfully execute his duties to Rome? Did Seneca do everything in his power to eliminate all the many unfair and brutal actions by Rome and Nero? Are Marcus and Seneca, and every other flawed stoic, stripped of value and instruction to other stoics because as men they were also flawed? No. This is precisely why their many imperfections are so important and relevant to us. They were not sages, but flesh and blood flawed human beings. No real stoic every makes all the right decisions. No real stoic has the luxury of perfection with "on the spot" decision-making with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, or playing armchair quarterback, backseat driving, or living in an academic's ivory tower, free from the messiness of life, or in Stockdale's case - the bad decisions of their military superiors. No real stoic is free from making fatally poor decisions. Stockdale demonstrated all of the key stoic virtues of stoic bravery, courage, temperance and wisdom beyond measure. He saved many lives as a result. Tell me of your comparable or surpassing challenges?
Massimo, would presentism be the same of anachronism? Also I tend to agree that James Stockdale as a whole is not a role model, we would need to scope down to just his prison time, as indeed the Vietnam war was clearly a mistake.
Related to presentism is the issue that you alluded to: "Seneca possibly did his best, showing a significant amount of courage...".
One twentieth century figure who I think will be re-evaluated by history more postiviely is Nikita Khrushchev. Coming out of a remarkably brutal period - the Stalin era - I believe he left the world a better place than someone lesser than him. I also find it touching that his death notice was appropriate for a Communist leader: "pensioner of the state". As far as I can tell, he was a good man who was dealt a bad hand and played it well.
As to the issue of presentism, I wonder what the future will judge us for failing in. My guess is that, almost without exception, every country locks criminals up, quite often in cages. As a member of Amnesty International since 1979, I have been against capital punishment, but the penal system is disturbing also. Realistically though, I am not sure what the alternative would be. In the realm of fiction, there is Samuel Butler's "Erewhon", and two science fiction stories: Robert Heinlein's "Coventry" and Damon Knight's "Country of the Kind". But the first alternative is satire and the other two are probably unrealistic. As Feynman pointed out in "Cargo Cult Science": "Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress—lots of theory, but no progress—in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals."
I'm no apologist for Stockdale, the war in Vietnam, or the military in general. Indeed, I have a hard time understanding how the practice of stoicism and a military career can be reconciled. That's another story.
BUT, lying and subterfuge have been part and parcel of military campaigns since before the Trojan horse. If Stockdale honestly believed in the righteousness of the American cause vis a vis Vietnam (many people did) might the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" have been justified in his mind because it effectuated a strategic goal he thought desirable?
OK - I see your point. I mentioned that I know for a fact, being a Stoic or not, that I could not have equaled Stockdale performance in captivity, I doubt very seriously that if I was a navy pilot in 1964 like Stockdale that I would have resigned from the navy, ended my career, suffered the dislike of my peers, all to try to end a war that few people in the country were against in 1964 - well, I’m glad I don’t have to live up to this standard.
Stockdale is remembered today for his unbelievable courage and fortitude displayed during over seven years of maltreatment and torture by the North Vietnamese. Apparently his study of the stoics helped him in this regard. I probably would not have lasted a minute under the circumstances described, so his experiences certainly deserve study. As to his so-called failure during the Gulf of Tonkin episode, it wasn’t Stockdale who used the incident to broaden the war, but President Johnson and River McNamara. Although many people in the USA came to see the war as wrong as it ground on in the late 60s and early 70s, this was not the case in 1964 when the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred. By the next year, Stockdale was already a prisoner of war.
Haven’t heard of “presentism” before. This is a great insight! Thank you. Also regarding Stockdale, I wonder if it is fair to label him as not a Stoic because of periods in his life where he didn’t act virtuously. Surely we are all guilty of that. I also wonder if him become a prisoner was the inciting incident that propelled him into Stoicism. Perhaps his time as a prisoner was not just a period of life hacking but a spiritual school where he really learned what wisdom and Stoicism was, before which he didn’t really understand. Steve Taylor has done some work showing that extreme emotional turmoil can often be a catalyst for awakening or realisation.
Superb clarification of the term! 👍😊
Massimo, thank you for following up on Stockdale. While I disagree with your position on the man, this brought some clarity to your reasoning. There is a fork which must be addressed: professional versus personal ethics. A defense counsel represents their client's interests, even when the client is guilty, and we see this as necessary to preserve a justice system in which all are equal before the law. A soldier serves the interest of the state (not the good, although it is preferred that these align), and we see this as necessary for military effectiveness and inseperable from the the tradition of civilian control over the military.
A survey of history tells us that when soldiers have voted with their feet, they have often voted with their arms as well. The subordination of personal morality to professional ethic is therefore a safeguard of the democratic state. This can create moral dilemmas and Stockdale's dilemma is exemplary of the type.
This begs the counter of Stoic cosmopolitanism and the universality of virtue, which brings us back to the start, asking "what is the benchmark of a Stoic?" Epictetus was a sage, but Marcus Aurelius did not see himself as such. He was a good Emperor, but he was an emperor and understood that his interests were the interests of Rome, il etait l'etat. We look up to Stoics like Marcus Aurelius and Seneca for the way they navigated the moral dilemmas of office and command, even when they did so imperfectly. Indeed, I see a direct parallel between Roman wars to establish defensive buffers on its frontiers with the Monroe doctrine and the doctrine of containment which precipitated American defense of South Vietnam.
Does a lawyer who defends a guilty client commit an immoral act? Perhaps in isolation, yes, and that's why many people avoid that part of the profession. But a fair system of justice extends defense counsel all accused, so we need lawyers who will serve guilty clients. A state has a natural right to defense (how far this right extends is controversial). Therefore the state needs soldiers, and soldiers who don't subordinate themselves to legitimate authority are dangerous to everyone, as the history of Rome itself shows. We therefore have an ethical norm that soldiers serve the legitimate authority of the state so long as their orders are not manifestly unlawful. Stockdale acted within the constraints of that norm.
Gentle chiding only. Flourish on your journey.
Respectfully, second guessing Stockdale is precisely your exercise. His awareness of the injustice of the Vietnam war or the injustice of the action at Tonkin does not for me tarnish his value as a human being and how we may learn from him as an exemplary stoic.
Stoic virtue does not suggest that we weigh one key element, for example - Justice, above all others components of virtue. We must balance all as best we can. When we find - in hindsight - we were not correct, we learn, we improve. If Marcus had placed Justice above all other stoic virtues, and second to none, he should not have defended the centuries long corruption and depravities of Rome, including Rome's invasion of the northern "indigenous" peoples - as far north as Austrian Vindobona - who were invaded by Rome for essentially defensive, taxation and commercial reasons. Is the action of Hamas against innocent people in Israel on 11/7 rightly thought of as "justice" because there is some reasonable basis for sympathy with the plight of everyday Palestinians? Certainly not. Will the Israeli response to Hamas fall in the category of "injustice", when thousands or more of innocent non-combatants will most likely die? I would suggest it will rightly not.
Defining the value of what we can learn about stoicism from Stockdale based on subjective perceptions of what constitutes Justice in one context or another is unnecessarily restrictive. Your suggestion that Stockdale as a warrior needed to abandon all his responsibilities and balance Justice over his military duties, the exercise of temperance, and acting with honor as a warrior, oversimplifies and diminishes his dilemma.
Yes, I will compare Socrates to Stockdale. Both were brave warriors. The legacy of Socrates is unfairly glorified and his actual beliefs are likely highly distorted by his student, Plato. No one knows truly were Plato begins and Socrates ends, or the other way around. Or should we say that Socrates is the rightful inventor/propounder/true-believer in the non-sensical, utopian-sounding Republic, soon to be run by unelected authoritarians or academics (and most likely aristocrats or simple thugs) who deem themselves philosopher kings? If so, the world Socrates wanted more closely represents modern leaders of China, even though in China they have not yet successfully outlawed individual liberty, individual freedom, or even for that matter poetry, or all dissent quite yet, but who are still doing the level best. If this is the true Socrates, yes, I will take Stockdale with all his several flaws.
Michael, I respect your opinion. But nobody is second guessing Stockdale. He writes about Tonkin in his biography, and he explicitly says he knew the war started on false pretense. You mention all the Stoic virtue except the crucial one in this context: justice. Stockdale acted unjustly, and knowingly so. That’s not what I except from a role model.
As for Seneca and Marcus. Nobody brings up Seneca as a role model. And I don’t think Marcus could have avoided defense frontier wars. Besides, as I explain in my recent article on presentism, it is a mistake to project our current ethical standards back two millennia. But Stockdale didn’t live in the first or second century, so it’s fair to evaluate him according to modern standards. There, he clearly failed.
Also, it is irrelevant whether you or I would do better than Stockdale. Neither you nor I have ever been brought up as role model. In Stoicism a role model is pretty close to a sage. Think of Seneca’s praise of Cato, or Epictetus’s regard for Socrates. Do you really want to compare Stockdale to Socrates?
It is remarkable Massimo that you fail to understand Stockdale's journey, and how he was a better stoic than you or I could hope to be. His guide in understanding stoicism was Epictetus, who understood and wrote that a soldier's life is a life of service, and if you neglect, decline, or shun that duty of loyalty, service and responsibility when some severe, or even unfair, order is laid upon you, you will condemn your army to a pitiful and desperate state. Many unjust acts were committed in the Vietnam war. Second-guessing what Stockdale "Knew" and "When he knew it" is an academics parlor game. Did Marcus not brutally order the combined deaths of thousands of his men and those of his enemies? Was there no other way for him to faithfully execute his duties to Rome? Did Seneca do everything in his power to eliminate all the many unfair and brutal actions by Rome and Nero? Are Marcus and Seneca, and every other flawed stoic, stripped of value and instruction to other stoics because as men they were also flawed? No. This is precisely why their many imperfections are so important and relevant to us. They were not sages, but flesh and blood flawed human beings. No real stoic every makes all the right decisions. No real stoic has the luxury of perfection with "on the spot" decision-making with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, or playing armchair quarterback, backseat driving, or living in an academic's ivory tower, free from the messiness of life, or in Stockdale's case - the bad decisions of their military superiors. No real stoic is free from making fatally poor decisions. Stockdale demonstrated all of the key stoic virtues of stoic bravery, courage, temperance and wisdom beyond measure. He saved many lives as a result. Tell me of your comparable or surpassing challenges?
Massimo, would presentism be the same of anachronism? Also I tend to agree that James Stockdale as a whole is not a role model, we would need to scope down to just his prison time, as indeed the Vietnam war was clearly a mistake.
Related to presentism is the issue that you alluded to: "Seneca possibly did his best, showing a significant amount of courage...".
One twentieth century figure who I think will be re-evaluated by history more postiviely is Nikita Khrushchev. Coming out of a remarkably brutal period - the Stalin era - I believe he left the world a better place than someone lesser than him. I also find it touching that his death notice was appropriate for a Communist leader: "pensioner of the state". As far as I can tell, he was a good man who was dealt a bad hand and played it well.
As to the issue of presentism, I wonder what the future will judge us for failing in. My guess is that, almost without exception, every country locks criminals up, quite often in cages. As a member of Amnesty International since 1979, I have been against capital punishment, but the penal system is disturbing also. Realistically though, I am not sure what the alternative would be. In the realm of fiction, there is Samuel Butler's "Erewhon", and two science fiction stories: Robert Heinlein's "Coventry" and Damon Knight's "Country of the Kind". But the first alternative is satire and the other two are probably unrealistic. As Feynman pointed out in "Cargo Cult Science": "Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress—lots of theory, but no progress—in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals."
Did Stockdale think of himself as a Stoic? Of is his experience just a good example of the practical application of stoicism in one circumstance?
I think the latter. Like myself. I consider myself a student of stoicism not a Stoic.
I'm no apologist for Stockdale, the war in Vietnam, or the military in general. Indeed, I have a hard time understanding how the practice of stoicism and a military career can be reconciled. That's another story.
BUT, lying and subterfuge have been part and parcel of military campaigns since before the Trojan horse. If Stockdale honestly believed in the righteousness of the American cause vis a vis Vietnam (many people did) might the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" have been justified in his mind because it effectuated a strategic goal he thought desirable?
OK - I see your point. I mentioned that I know for a fact, being a Stoic or not, that I could not have equaled Stockdale performance in captivity, I doubt very seriously that if I was a navy pilot in 1964 like Stockdale that I would have resigned from the navy, ended my career, suffered the dislike of my peers, all to try to end a war that few people in the country were against in 1964 - well, I’m glad I don’t have to live up to this standard.
Stockdale is remembered today for his unbelievable courage and fortitude displayed during over seven years of maltreatment and torture by the North Vietnamese. Apparently his study of the stoics helped him in this regard. I probably would not have lasted a minute under the circumstances described, so his experiences certainly deserve study. As to his so-called failure during the Gulf of Tonkin episode, it wasn’t Stockdale who used the incident to broaden the war, but President Johnson and River McNamara. Although many people in the USA came to see the war as wrong as it ground on in the late 60s and early 70s, this was not the case in 1964 when the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred. By the next year, Stockdale was already a prisoner of war.
Haven’t heard of “presentism” before. This is a great insight! Thank you. Also regarding Stockdale, I wonder if it is fair to label him as not a Stoic because of periods in his life where he didn’t act virtuously. Surely we are all guilty of that. I also wonder if him become a prisoner was the inciting incident that propelled him into Stoicism. Perhaps his time as a prisoner was not just a period of life hacking but a spiritual school where he really learned what wisdom and Stoicism was, before which he didn’t really understand. Steve Taylor has done some work showing that extreme emotional turmoil can often be a catalyst for awakening or realisation.