This essay is one installment in an ongoing series of works that I am currently developing. Two characters appear throughout this essay, Godine and Huron. I have adopted the use of these characters as a means to help elaborate on the essay, where a simple monologue is not enough to express my ideas. Godine is a young pupil in an aristocratic family. Huron is Godine’s tutor, much like we found with Aristotle and Alexander.
For millennia, pundits, scholars, poets, and self-proclaimed ‘free thinkers’ have negotiated altruism. Some approach this topic with great veneration. Others will navigate the topic with a neo-utilitarian perspective. Allow me to define our subject, so that any modicum of confusion can have the day off. Altruism is the unselfish interest in the welfare of others. It propels mankind to express unfettered empathy towards others. Epictetus, in his Discourses, indicates that “a person who knows what is good is also the person who knows how to love” (see ‘Discourses’, Book II).
Consequentialism
Consequentialism acts as a motif insofar as it can guide us through the many nuances of altruism. It is futile to pretend that the world is a fair and just place. We can strip this idea to an even greater extent by denying the axiom that man is inherently ‘good.’ For such an axiom to truly exist would negate the reality of theft, crime, murder, and so on. I’ve defined this dichotomy (inherent evil) as well as the doctrine (consequentialism) to aid my readers in this epistemological odyssey. Consequentialism denotes that the best/ right actions to take are correct only if they lead to the betterment/greater good of the world.
Whether an act is right from a moral perspective depends on the results of the actions that were taken.
Superficially, this axiom appears not so foreign to us. Is it not simple to do what is right? However, we quickly run into a rather bizarre juxtaposition. One heavily cited anecdote of the limits of consequentialism (and utilitarianism) follows:
‘A healthy person walks into a hospital, which happens to also house patients in dire need of new organs. One patient requires a new heart; one needs a new liver; another a new kidney; and, finally, one is in need of a new spleen. Does it not make sense, insofar as keeping true to utilitarianism, to sacrifice the one healthy person in order to save 4 others?’
Forms of Utilitarianism
Rule Utilitarianism: This motif of consequentialism takes into account the rights of the individual; indeed, up until this point, I have focused on the betterment of society at large. This manifestation of the aforementioned doctrine centers around rules which are generally accepted in society, hence the name ‘Rule Utilitarianism.’
Act Utilitarianism: Our next motif of our doctrine has its focus on the immediate consequences of an action. I have mostly covered this in the above sections. Act Utilitarianism covers our ‘healthy patient’ exercise.
On what basis do we decide which is right and which is wrong? Nuanced approaches, like the ones effectualized via Rule Utilitarianism, permit actions to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, the goal at present is for the ultimate betterment of the world around us, but now, rules and societal norms are taken into account.
Godine: “So we should ‘do the right thing’ all of the time?
Every hour of every day? Should all of these moments
‘be spent in unity? “
Huron: “Ah, but another device to this presumption exists.”
While we agree that it is, in most cases, pragmatic to take the route of altruism, there are cases in which we must apply rules of sanity. Thus, I call upon the doctrine of Agent-Centered Permissions. These rules denote that, while it is always acceptable to do the right thing, there is not always an obligation. If that were the case, we would all be spending our lives in soup kitchens and picking up refuse on the side of the road. I hope that, so far, the reader understands the complexity of these philosophical branches. As always, the clear path forward is not always clear. Marcus Aurelius instills in us that we should live by compassion; to honor the right of others to transcend “the good life.” Whether this means to an end involves holding the door for someone or donating to a provincial food shelter, let your moral compass guide you. While nuance’s application is crucial to nearly all facets of life, don’t allow it to subtract from one’s ability to do good, right here and right now. Epictetus warns of those who simply recite their philosophy but fall short of actually living by its code. Can we not be doing something better with our time? Can we not find altruistic vacuity all around us?
Godine: “And what of those who choose to spend their time shaming others?
Huron: “Are they not shamed themselves?”
Godine: “Well, it certainly appears that they are content.” Huron: “What business is that of yours? Do you follow these men you loathe around at all hours of the day? Do you read their mind’s eye, like some alley fortune caster? Do you know their inner thoughts? Their anxieties? No, of course not; for you are only seeing the facade in which they desire you to see.”
Godine: “So they are miserable?”
Huron: “Only their conscience truly knows.”
The physiocracy at which I write about reminds me that it is almost always better and least costful to show empathy; to embrace altruism. The tax one’s conscience pays for each damnation, lie, and cast of shame is simply too high. The Stoics remind us of this axiom numerous times throughout their teachings (and, more so, practiced their philosophy daily).
Juxtaposition
Doctrines, like Stoicism, can take us rather far in terms of living a peaceful and coexistent life. I aim to call this good life.” But should the Stoic stop at inner-peace (the likes of which Zeno and others have stressed)? What if we, in a juxtaposed reality, embrace the destiny to better not only ourselves, but also those around us? Do they not deserve an equal try at this “good life?” Epictetus certainly thinks so. Montaigne, like Epictetus, understood this well. The great philosopher dedicated the contents of an entire essay to the idea (see ‘On Cruelty’ by Montaigne). Indeed, Stoicism contributes to the pragmatism that underlies the effort of making the world a better place for everyone (insofar as keeping our theme of altruism in focus). But I believe that Epictetus takes the baton further insofar as he understood the need to advance the doctrine of Stoicism just a tad further; to focus not only on the self, but others and the world at large.I do not intend to subtract from Stoicism here; indeed, it was the first doctrine I ever studied-and still continue to do so to this day. It facilitated my exposure to the vitiated world around me, and, in most regards, how philosophy can act as a bulwark to an otherwise archaic existence. As Marcus Aurelius says: “to live like a Roman; a citizen.”
Irrespective of what the Stoics truly saw as “the good life” (or how modern philosophy translates this idea), I can certify to the utility and pragmatism of kindness, empathy, and other values that perform the functions of altruism. Should we not set sail with these traits? Why, I’d like to imagine we’d be settling a colony on Mars by now. These anecdotes and musings aside, I mean to affirm that being kind is the simple way to “the good life” for a better world.
The acquisition of “the good life” is, under conventional circumstance, inversely related to the inability of someone to manifest altruism. Insomuch as I have decreed that kindness, empathy, compassion, and so on are the means to a happy conclusion.
If we approach others with the savvy to mean them justice and peace, would society benefit? I certainly think so. Was it not easier for the Romans, notwithstanding their long and bloody history, to govern a province rather than rule by total oppression? Surely I don’t intend to sound like an apologist, but we must observe some merit, as so many modern scholars have, of Roman rule during the Pax Romana era. I see these virtues in the era of the Five Good Emperors (Nerva-Aurelius, 96-180CE). Did they not carry about their business in stark contrast to the likes of Nero or Geta? Was this not the same Marcus Aurelius- the father of Stoicism? So, too, if a vast empire can exercise even a modicum of altruism, so can we.
Going further, I can see altruism in everyday natural phenomena: the symbiotic and mutual relationship is so clear. Take the clownfish, for example, and its close relationship to the anemone. Both work towards much different outcomes, but each benefits from the other at little to no cost. I will spare us the biology lesson of what these two creatures exercise, but my point remains insofar as we can observe an infinite occurrence of altruism from other living beings. Let us carry on.
Be wary of those who claim debauchery when the ideas of justice, peace, compassion, and altruism are at hand. For these same people have lost the gambit; they see no merit in helping others. Theirs is a zero-sum game. Injustice begets injustice, and Montaigne leaves us with even more breadcrumbs on this understanding. I bask in the simplification of his view on kindness insofar as my translation of it seems to hold up. “A life worth living is one in which we look for the means to the betterment of our fellow beings.” We can extend this to world-altruism insomuch as we identify the benefit of treating nature with the faculties of good stewardship.
Huron: “So we have the tools, let us set sail. If not for the betterment of our fellow man, then for the betterment of the world; for all good things will follow the echelons of altruism. It is ordained by nature.”
Copyright © 2025 Gabriel King. All rights reserved. This work may not be published, reproduced, or altered in any way without the express permission of the author.
Pingback: Who Was Sophie Scholl and Why She Died Resisting Fascism