Poker has taught me - no matter the outcome, what matters is that I played the hand the right way. Outcome in a single event is based on variance = luck. Outcome of many events is determined by good play = statistics.
I don't agree that stoic leaders don't need to chose between being loved or feared. Both are means of control of their subjects. Stoic leaders can (manipulatively?) choose which means they use, but they have to use one of them, otherwise their subjects will freely choose themselves.
But the deeper problem with utilitarianism and consequentialism is that as Lao-C would say: it's too early to tell. You do not have certainty - only probability of the outcome. So if ends justify means and your ends are probabilistic - what means are really justified?
It’s not the fact, it's the mindset! Stoicism is a type of virtue ethics, right? While deontology is all about supposed universal moral principles, and consequentialism is about trying to predict the consequences of your actions (the problem of which Lao-C apparently nailed), virtue ethics kinda says "we can't be sure of either final consequences or absolute Imperatives, so let's try developing ourselves."
Yeah, subjects will choose how they feel about the leader. But as long as you know you're doing your own personal best, you're fine with it.
BTW Nietzscheanism is also a form of virtue ethics 🙂
Poker has taught me - no matter the outcome, what matters is that I played the hand the right way. Outcome in a single event is based on variance = luck. Outcome of many events is determined by good play = statistics.
I don't agree that stoic leaders don't need to chose between being loved or feared. Both are means of control of their subjects. Stoic leaders can (manipulatively?) choose which means they use, but they have to use one of them, otherwise their subjects will freely choose themselves.
But the deeper problem with utilitarianism and consequentialism is that as Lao-C would say: it's too early to tell. You do not have certainty - only probability of the outcome. So if ends justify means and your ends are probabilistic - what means are really justified?
It’s not the fact, it's the mindset! Stoicism is a type of virtue ethics, right? While deontology is all about supposed universal moral principles, and consequentialism is about trying to predict the consequences of your actions (the problem of which Lao-C apparently nailed), virtue ethics kinda says "we can't be sure of either final consequences or absolute Imperatives, so let's try developing ourselves."
Yeah, subjects will choose how they feel about the leader. But as long as you know you're doing your own personal best, you're fine with it.
BTW Nietzscheanism is also a form of virtue ethics 🙂