\n<\/p>\n
The first months of President Donald Trump\u2019s return to the White House have been disorienting. Talk of making Canada the 51st U.S. state and acquiring Panama and Greenland by force have been shocking. Trump\u2019s willingness to implement tariffs against longstanding allies and align with Russia have bewildered many supporters. His attacks against international norms, rules, and institutions are destabilizing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
U.S. foreign policy seems to be driven by the nakedly self-serving whims of an ill-disciplined president. Restraints on power have fallen away. Democracy is in retreat. So, how should the United States and other countries govern their international engagements amid such tumult?<\/p>\n
One place to look for guidance is Stoicism, a major philosophical school of the Hellenistic period. While Stoic ethics focus chiefly on personal virtue, they can also apply to foreign policy. In ancient Greece and Rome, many Stoics were active in social as well as political life. It is a philosophy for the real world, not just a lecture hall. Indeed, current foreign policymakers in the United States and beyond should heed six Stoic lessons in a turbulent world.<\/p>\n
First, Stoicism centers the pursuit of virtue. Stoics identify four cardinal virtues: justice, fortitude, temperance, and prudence. Justice, rendering unto others what they deserve, according to Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius, is the source of all other virtues and should guide conduct. Once we have prudently identified the just path, fortitude and temperance are required to follow it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
For Stoics, virtue has a universal, even cosmopolitan, application. This is crucial for understanding Stoicism\u2019s foreign policy implications. The ancient Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca, for instance, likened the madness of war to manslaughter or murder. Similarly, Epictetus, a slave at the Roman court who became a Stoic philosopher, viewed war as a frequent occasion for vice, especially when driven by greed and ego. While many Stoics engaged in warfare, and the philosophy itself is not pacifist, the ethical criteria for what might be termed a virtuous<\/em> war are strict. Such a war conforms to a stringent application of \u201cjust war theory\u201d and the principles jus ad bellum<\/em>, jus in bello<\/em>, and jus post bellum<\/em>\u2014just cause in starting a war, morally justifiable conduct during war, and moral responsibility after war.<\/p>\n A Stoic foreign policy would have little patience for politics that favor expediency over morality or for an unprincipled, ill-disciplined approach to world affairs. Power is never the objective; it is always a means to pursue the just. While determining what is just is complicated, it is probably less difficult to pursue than sometimes assumed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Easier still, perhaps, is identifying unjust behavior. Using power to serve leaders\u2019 narrow self-interest is unjust. As is the current unconcern for the planet we\u2019ll leave future generations. A Stoic foreign policy might embrace something akin to American political philosopher John Rawls\u2019 \u201cveil of ignorance\u201d\u2014a thought experiment that asks what conditions you\u2019d wish to prevail in society, if you were to be born into it again with your class, race, gender, and so forth unknown to you.<\/p>\n Second, Stoicism pursues the common good via institutions. Self-mastery and discipline are means to a better society. The Roman senator and Stoic Cato the Younger argued forcefully in support of traditional Roman institutions against the predations of dictatorship, decadence, and power. Well-functioning institutions check the abuse of power and guard against tyranny. For Aurelius, \u201cWhat injures the hive injures the bee.\u201d The inverse is also true.<\/p>\n In foreign policy, mistrust of power and emphasis on institutions runs against the current assault on the rules-based international order. Attacks on international humanitarian law<\/a> and growing openness to recognizing Russia\u2019s gains from territorial conquest\u2014all to suit short-term political interests\u2014undermine institutions. The will to power must be tempered by the pursuit of virtue. Stoics oppose the self-interested exercise of power by leaders little concerned with the wider good. Cato saw institutions as essential constraints on the naked exercise of power.<\/p>\n