The Stoics Differ from Aristotle on How They See Virtue

 

Aristotle says happiness is virtuous activity. The Stoics say virtue lies in intention. Are they on the same page?

Claude:

Not quite, though there's some overlap. The key difference lies in what each school emphasizes about virtue and its relationship to happiness.

Aristotle sees virtue as a way of acting - it's about actually doing virtuous things in the world. His concept of *eudaimonia* (often translated as happiness or flourishing) requires not just having virtuous intentions, but successfully expressing virtue through your actions and choices over a complete life. For Aristotle, you can't be fully happy if external circumstances prevent you from acting virtuously or if misfortune strikes.

The Stoics, by contrast, locate virtue entirely in your inner attitude and intentions. They argue that what matters is your rational judgment and how you choose to respond to circumstances, not the outcomes. A Stoic sage could be tortured or lose everything and still be perfectly virtuous (and therefore happy) if they maintain the right mental attitude.

This creates a practical tension: Aristotle would say someone who intends to be generous but lacks the means to help others is missing something essential to virtue. The Stoics would say the generous intention itself is sufficient - the virtue is complete regardless of whether you can actually give.

So while both schools agree that virtue and happiness are intimately connected, they disagree about whether virtue requires successful action in the world (Aristotle) or just proper intention and judgment (Stoics). The Aristotelian view is more dependent on external conditions, while the Stoic view aims to make virtue completely independent of circumstances.