Despite its benefits, there is a crucial flaw in the doctrine of moderation proposed by Seneca (4 BC-65 AD). The problem is not new in the history of philosophy. Four centuries earlier, Aristotle (384-322 BC) had committed the same error when he came up with the doctrine of the golden mean.
I blame the flaw on the philosophers’ desire to give complex advice. Aristotle had defined virtue as a middle point or golden mean between two vices. Seneca had exacerbated the error by elevating moderation to a virtue in itself.
What is the problem with the golden mean and moderation? The problem with those two doctrines is that they fail to define virtue in a direct manner.
Aristotle viewed generosity as a virtue, but had defined it as the golden mean between avarice and reckless expenditures. It is an ingenious definition, but there is no incontestable way to establish how generous we should be in each case.
Seneca is even worse because he called for moderation in all areas of life, just for the sake of moderation. If we apply his doctrine consistently, we will make poor choices.
The reason for Seneca’s errors about moderation
I think that Aristotle and Seneca had promoted their ideas of the golden mean and moderation precisely because those ideas are very complex. They require endless explanations from their originators, that is, from Aristotle and Seneca themselves.
In his works “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Eudemian Ethics,” Aristotle gave numerous examples of his golden mean doctrine and virtue definitions, but I’ve never seen anyone employ them in real life. There are just too convoluted.
Concerning the doctrine of moderation, Seneca gave dozens of examples in his Letters to Lucilius, but his examples are as convoluted that those given by Aristotle.
I am referring for instance to the 31st Letter to Lucilius. This Letter contains Seneca’s exhortation to “eat only for the sake of maintaining one’s health, but not for the sake of enjoyment.”
Why on earth should we not enjoy eating, I wonder. What is the point of regarding eating as a tedious chore that we need to accomplish daily without any pleasure or delectation?
Seneca is advising us to turn our meals into unenjoyable chores. His recommendation is easy to fulfil if we decide to eat only boring and tasteless food, but why would we choose to do that?
Aspects that Seneca had overlooked
The 38th Letter to Lucilius does the same regarding comfort. Seneca rates comfort negatively because, he argues, comfort is diminishing our strength. Luxury renders us weak because it is undermining our psychological and physical capacity to cope with setbacks and privations.
I admire individuals who show resilience and determination during hard times, but I consider it foolish to impose privations on ourselves. Life already presents us with enough problems. It is irrational to fail to enjoy comfort and luxury when we can.
As time passed by, Seneca’s tone became more aggressive in advocating privations. His 39th Letter to Lucilius includes a diatribe against ambition. According to Seneca, ambition is not compatible with wisdom, and we must choose between one or the other.
Seneca’s arguments as remarkably weak. Indeed, it is easier to avoid performance anxiety if we do nothing, but passivity is going to create other issues and possibly other types of anxiety.
Intentionally or unintentionally, Seneca overlooks the heavy drawbacks of passivity. Over-zealousness can create stress, but lethargy is not a valid recipe for happiness. Doing nothing does not render people wise and clairvoyant.
Moderation fits Seneca’s concept of happiness
I oppose Seneca’s condemnation of ambition because it rests on the unproven doctrine of “moderation in everything.” If we heed Seneca’s advice, life would become unbearably boring.
A dog or a cat may be happy without long-term purpose, but that’s not the case for human beings. Motivation requires goals, preferably ambitious goals. Nobody can draw motivation from passivity and immobility.
Seneca’s exhortation for self-control and self-discipline does not make any sense either. His 45th Letter to Lucilius is asking us to exercise self-discipline in our thoughts and actions, but in his explanations, Seneca forgets about motivation.
People need compelling goals to sustain their motivation. It is inconceivable that someone may become enthusiastic about renunciation, passivity and boredom. Seneca’s recipes seem to overlook all psychological evidence about motivation.
Seneca affirms that we should feel happy in any situation or circumstances, and that renunciation is the key to contentment. If we content ourselves with little, he argues, we could secure happiness even if the darkest periods.
I strongly disagree with Seneca’s conception of happiness. It had been established in the “Nicomachean Ethics” that humans are happy only when they are thriving, only when they are pursuing fascinating goals.
The practice of Seneca’s doctrine of moderation
Low expectations and renunciation, as proposed by Seneca, can help us cope with temporary setbacks, but do not constitute steady sources of motivation.
Seneca is wrong in affirming that the happiest or wealthiest people are those who content themselves with little. Seneca is making exceptionally negative situations appear as normal, but he is obviously wrong.
In real life, we all fail from time to time, but nobody fails all the time in all his endeavours. If we go through a difficult year, we might need to tighten our budget, but any privations should drive us to work harder in pursuit of a better lifestyle.
Seneca’s poor logic drives the 56th Letter to Lucilius, which is predicating material poverty. Especially in our century, there are countless opportunities for people to increase their earnings and we don’t need to heed Seneca’s exhortation for moderation, renunciation and deprivation as a permanent lifestyle choice.
Let us enjoy the benefits of Seneca’s call for moderation by applying it reasonably. Let us employ moderation as a first line of defence against vice, chemical dependence, and any harmful habit that threatens our happiness.
Beyond that point, moderation and renunciation are likely to prove self-defeating. Seneca had good intentions, but his logic is deficient. If ambition prompts us to pursue beneficial goals, we should regard ambition positively. There is no need to fall prey to excessive fear and apprehension.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to all sort of situations, I recommend you my book titled “The Philosophy of Builders.”