The uniqueness of the ethical system put forward by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) becomes clear when we compare it with other philosophies. I regard it as particularly enlightening to compare Schopenhauer’s ethics with Taoism and Stoicism.
Taoism was created in ancient China. It predicates harmony with nature, spontaneity, modesty, simplicity and steering away from violence.
Lao-Tzu (6th century BC) preceded Plato by a century. After his death, his disciples put his teachings in writing. For Taoists, the higher values are inner balance and tranquillity. They view those as more important than justice and self-fulfilment.
Schopenhauer’s and Taoist ethics
A commonality between Taoism and Schopenhauer’s ethics is that both of them regard compassion as a cardinal virtue. For Taoists, compassion rests on the belief that all living creatures are interconnected, and that it’s good to help alleviate suffering in others.
Nonetheless, Schopenhauer’s ethics call for self-awareness, foresight, and taking initiative against impending danger. This is not the case of Taoism. Its emphasis on aligning oneself with the world and living in harmony with events is not compatible with determined action.
Taoists call for Wu Wei, that is, “non-action” or “effortless action” as their main tool for achieving balance and tranquillity but such a tool is doomed to failure. Schopenhauer understood this problem perfectly well. If you want to do the right thing, it is not sufficient to go with the flow.
Schopenhauer’s rejection of passivity
If you devote yourself to Wu Wei, you might find harmony, naturalness and spontaneity, but you will also find catastrophes and suffering. Passivity and effortless action are insufficient to solve severe problems. Wu Wei can easily turn your life in hell.
Schopenhauer rejected passivity in his book “The world as will and representation” (1818). It is naive to expect Wu Wei to lead to effectiveness and happiness. If you follow “the natural flow of life,” chances are that the will (“life force”) drives you to harmful action because of its extreme short-term orientation.
In daily life, Schopenhauer adopted many habits that match the Taoist paradigm; especially after settling down in Frankfurt in 1830, he led a lifestyle of frugality, moderation, simplicity, and self-reliance.
Schopenhauer’s ethics and Stoicism
Schopenhauer’s ethical ideas also show commonalities with Ancient Stoicism. According to Greek writings, Stoicism was developed by Zeno of Citium (3rd century BC) who had moved to Athens and was giving lectures on the “stoa” (long, covered colonnade on the north side of the Acropolis).
In practical terms, Stoicism is very similar to Taoism, but its proponents characterize it as “practical and rational.” I regard this characterization as an attempt by its defenders (Epictetus, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius) to add credibility to Stoicism.
You won’t find the words “practical and rational” in Taoist writings because Taoists are less judgemental than Stoics. They predicate “harmony with the natural order” even in the face of vast injustices.
Seneca (4-65 AD) is the most widely known of all Ancient Stoics because he wrote more books (essays) that all the others combined. He advised readers to cultivate wisdom, temperance and courage when faced with setbacks.
He invokes reason when he calls readers to accept all things outside their control, but is this really reasonable? I consider Seneca too willing to categorize man-made mistakes or abuses as “things outside of one’s control.”
Schopenhauer’s call for decisive action
Schopenhauer rejected Seneca’s argument as unreasonable. I agree with Schopenhauer that one shouldn’t accept disasters as inevitable. If you become self-aware, you’ll detect problems in advance, enabling you to take decisive action.
In his 1808 book “On the fivefold roots of the principle of sufficient reason,” Schopenhauer shows how events are driven by nature, biology and human decisions, but none of those can nullify the ethical obligation to take action.
Stoicism is too passive, too accepting of unnecessary harm. One should not decline responsibility for health, prosperity and happiness. One shouldn’t blame too easily “things outside one’s control.” Very often, those excuses cannot withstand scrutiny.
Differences between Schopenhauer and Stoicism
The key difference between Schopenhauer’s and Stoic ethics is their different conception of the universe. Stoics claim that it is governed by rational principles and divine providence. This is an idea that Schopenhauer determinedly rejects.
Schopenhauer’s essay “On the will in nature” (1832) affirms exactly the opposite. He views the universe as governed by the will (“life force”) which is wild, blind, irrational, indifferent to suffering, and uncaring of long-term consequences.
The Stoics’ belief in an ordered, harmonious cosmos is total nonsense. The concepts of self-actualization, justice, happiness and fairness are human creations. They don’t exist in nature. If you doubt my words, I must ask you to study wildlife and look for an iota of justice and fairness.
Schopenhauer rightly dismissed Stoicism as too passive. It’s up to each person to adopt measures to minimize the negative effects of the will and increase one’s happiness; those measures require effort and dedication, but there is no valid alternative.
Schopenhauer and individual responsibility
The Stoic call for accepting with equanimity everything that is outside one’s control (external events, other people’s actions, mistakes, etc.) is defeatist, unworkable and suicidal.
If you adopt the Stoic views, you’ll relinquish wealth, fame, health and pleasure all too easily. Schopenhauer considered it wise to remind ourselves of our limited lifespan. Fair enough, but the fact that we will all die one day does not relieve us of the responsibility of making the best of our lives.
If you are interested in applying rational principles to your life, in particular in harsh circumstances, I recommend you my book “The philosophy of builders.”
Related articles
Schopenhauer’s biography (4 of 5): the years of disappointing success
Schopenhauer’s biography (5 of 5): the illustrious years
Schopenhauer’s key ideas on ethics