Hecato of Rhodes and Stoic Casuistry

Abstract

This article focuses on one of the most important figures of the so-called Middle Stoicism, Hecato of Rhodes. By his use of the disputatio in utramque partem («debating both sides»), Hecato tackles the problem of moral dilemma, or conflict of duties. An analysis of his examples, compared to the ones previously used by Antipater of Tarsus, Diogenes of Babylonia and Chrysippus, sheds a new light on Stoic ethics. Hecato first shows that a moral rule is always linked to practical parameters and that the moral calculation consists precisely in articulating all of them, without crushing it under the weight of the absolute value that is virtue. Saying virtue is the supreme value is not enough, when it comes to matter of conscience: the whole question rests in our balancing the burden that each parameter places on us. But how can we be sure that this rational calculation is still following the moral compass we have, that is, the absolute value that is virtue? Hecato’s suggestion is the following: practising morality causes a good to be passed on and returned in a continuous movement; its aim is to make the good pervade the world, and this can be achieved by the most visible good on the human stage, i.e. the practice of beneficence, love and friendship. Therefore, our first injunction is not a strictly rational one: it is an appeal to loving other people, because by this we orient ourselves in the right direction.