Is dying for a cause really worthwhile or desirable?
You surely know those regular table conversations where someone says that dying for a cause, something meaningful, would be a noble thing. It's a romanticized idea, and many believe it is heroic or courageous. But is that really the case? Let's take a look from a Stoic perspective.
Living for a cause
Stoicism's goal is living a eudaimonic life or reaching eudaimonia. The emphasis here is on living. That's the cause Stoics are living for. We want to focus on our internal state of mind and respond virtuously to whatever circumstances we find ourselves in.
However, living for a cause is not worthy or worth striving for per se. The reason isn't worth pursuing if it's not done by living virtuously. That's why Stoics focus on virtue over external circumstances. The aim is to develop a good character who can face any situation with stability and strength. So, living for a cause can only be worthwhile if it is done with virtue. Only through the cultivation of virtue can we attain arete, an excellent character indispensable for achieving eudaimonia - true flourishing (what Stoics seek).
Imagine a young person whose cause is to change the world through politics. However, this young individual must be dishonest and manipulative to get to the top of the ladder of success. In this case, living for a cause while sacrificing one's virtue and character is far from desirable. On the contrary, it can steer the person further from true fulfillment and eudaimonic happiness.
Dying for a cause
Dying for a cause, on the other hand, is not inherently worthwhile from a Stoic perspective. While it may be seen as heroic in some contexts, it is ultimately an external outcome beyond our control, thus, indifferent.
If it is worth dying for a meaningful purpose is often only considered from the overall cause, not on an individual level. At the regular table, it's widely accepted that sacrificing one's life to fight against dictators or despots is worthwhile.
Now, let's assume someone is living to fight a dictator, which is highly risky but noble. But does this person not have more value while living for this cause? Dying for it could be a negative outcome (outside our control), yet living for it each day is more meaningful - if done with virtue.
And why is it not worth striving for without virtue? Well, the goal of Stoicism is eudaimonia, a flourishing life, which is indeed possible under extremely harsh conditions. Viktor Frankl is one of the best-known examples of this. At first, considering the higher perspective of fighting a dictator, it seems reasonable to act even without virtue to dethrone somebody. But when you're not content with your life, bound by anger, sadness, or fear, and not living virtuously in the present moment - you might be dying with those feelings. You're not at peace with yourself. Virtue brings peace of mind and meaning while living and fighting against a greater force. Unvirtuous behavior might make you a mad dog but an unhappy one.
What would you prefer? Fighting and maybe sacrificing your life for a cause while enjoying eudaimonia during your life or battling and perhaps dying for it as an unhappy and grumpy person?
