Musonius Refuted

He said that he would never file a lawsuit against anyone for assault; nor would he advise anyone who thinks that the study of philosophy is worthwhile to file one.

– Lectures 10.1

Musonius Rufus would advise any would-be philosopher to take what Fortune throws at him, see it as an uncontrollable external, and move along. A Cynic or Epicurean, unconcerned with the political realities we must deal with, might take the same stance. But a Stoic sage, who knows he must help his fellow citizen, wouldn't. He would do what Justice would demand from him. He would protect others from misbehaving members of society and teach those who misbehave how they should act. I will argue that lawsuits do not show the plaintiff to be overcome with emotion, that they can be used to indicate misbehavior to the wrongdoer, and they can potentially prevent future instances of similar misbehavior.

I could name many other men who were targets of abuse, some verbally attacked and others injured by physical attacks. They appear neither to have defended themselves against their attackers nor to have sought revenge. Instead, they very calmly bore the wrong committed by their attackers. Indeed, plotting how to bite back someone who bites and to return evil against the one who first did evil is characteristic of a beast, not a man. A beast is not able to comprehend that many of the wrongs done to people are done out of ignorance and a lack of understanding. A person who gains this comprehension immediately stops doing wrong.

– Lectures 10.5

Musonius' definition of assault isn't clearly defined, but he allows for verbal and physical attacks. He references people he's known who could calmly bear attacks. He suggests that any attempt to punish wrongdoers amounts to lashing out like a wild beast. It's possible to punish, educate, and rehabilitate wrongdoers without losing one's composure. Musonius could look to a treatise by one of our own Seneca to see how.

…for as Plato says, a sensible man punishes, not because a wrong has been done, but lest one be done; what's done is beyond recall, what's to come can be prevented.

– Seneca, On Anger 1.9.7

Musonius is correct when he says, "the shame comes not in being insulted but in behaving in an insulting manner." While this holds true in all cases of assault, Musonius lumps verbal and physical assaults together and forgets that it is our job as philosophers to teach others when their behavior is inappropriate. If someone's behavior is behavior that we would consider to be lacking in virtue, we would instruct them to behave as we would. Verbal and physical assault is a behavior we wouldn't engage in. Therefore, it's on us to teach wrongdoers what they've done wrong through the means available to us in human society: prosecution.

Why do we prosecute those who veer off the virtuous path? Not because we wish to punish them. That's what Musonius sees lawsuits to be: punishment. There are base people among us that do see lawsuits as a way of punishing those they feel have wronged them. But a lawsuit can be a way of preventing a person or corporation from doing future wrongs. A philosopher might sue a person for stealing money from unsuspecting citizens. Indeed, those who've lost money aren't hurt by the loss of money, because it cannot hurt their character, we indicate the wrong done by the perceived transgressor to his character while preventing the same thing from happening again. A philosopher might file a suit against a corporation that's polluting the environment. This legal action won't make right what's been done, but it can stop future pollution and be a warning to other corporations that similar behavior will not be tolerated. A Stoic philosopher like Musonius cannot be opposed to actions that help our cosmos and our fellow citizens. Either God wants us to treat each other as part of a connected whole or not. By sharing a piece of the divine spark with all things, God binds us together as members of a connected whole. Therefore, each member is tasked with ensuring that just as he must do his part, his fellow members must also do theirs.

At the close of Lecture 10, Musonius says:

A philosopher is, after all, inconsistent if he says that a good man could never be wronged by a bad man, but then while claiming to be a good man, charges that he is wronged by a bad man.

I'll modify his argument slightly. A philosopher is, unjust if he says that he doesn't need to answer injustice to himself, but then while claiming to be a just man, ignores injustice done to others.