Skip to content

Question

Why does Marcus Aurelius say death and pain are neither good nor evil?

A look at the Stoic argument in Meditations 2.11: if something happens equally to good and bad people, it cannot be what makes a life good or bad.

Updated

The short answer

Marcus Aurelius reasons that death, pain, honor, dishonor, life and pleasure all fall equally on good people and bad people. Since none of these things track whether a person is virtuous or vicious, none of them can be what makes a life good or bad. Only what affects your character, your judgments and choices, counts as good or evil, and death and pain do neither.

Key points

  • Marcus defines good and evil by whether something makes a person better or worse in character.
  • Death, pain, life, pleasure, honor and dishonor happen to good and bad people alike.
  • Since these things do not track virtue or vice, they cannot themselves be good or evil.
  • Marcus also uses this reasoning to defend the idea of a provident, rational universe.
  • Calling death and pain indifferent does not mean they do not matter at all, since some indifferents are still reasonably preferred.
  • The passage pairs this argument with an instruction to live urgently, since death carries no dread once it is cleared of being an evil.

The longer answer

Marcus's argument in Meditations 2.11 is not a mood or a coping trick. It is a piece of reasoning with a clear structure, and it depends on how the Stoics define good and evil in the first place.

For the Stoics, something counts as good only if having it makes you a better person, and something counts as evil only if having it makes you worse. Marcus opens the passage with exactly this test: "that which does not make a man worse, how can it make a man's life worse?" (Meditations 2.11). The question is not whether death or pain feel bad. It is whether they touch the one thing Stoic ethics cares about, which is your character.

He then applies the test to the hard cases. Death, life, honor, dishonor, pain and pleasure "equally happen to good men and bad, being things which make us neither better nor worse" (Meditations 2.11). A cruel man and a just man both die. A coward and a courageous soldier both suffer wounds. If these things fell only on the wicked, or made everyone who had them worse, you could call them evils. But they occur in the lives of both virtuous and vicious people; their presence is not itself a measure of moral character. From this Marcus draws the conclusion: "Therefore they are neither good nor evil" (Meditations 2.11).

There is a second step to the argument that people often miss. Marcus is not just describing the world. He is defending Providence. He reasons that if the universe is governed by a rational, provident order, and if good and evil really did land indiscriminately on the just and the unjust, that would mean the universe is either ignorant of the difference or powerless to enforce it (Meditations 2.11). Since he holds that nature does not make mistakes of that kind, the fact that death and pain fall on everyone alike is itself evidence that they were never goods and evils to begin with. The universe has not failed to reward virtue and punish vice. It was never in the business of rewarding or punishing with health, long life, or comfort. Those were always indifferent.

Calling these things indifferent can sound like saying they are unimportant. But Stoic indifferents are things that are neither good nor evil in the strict ethical sense, but Stoic indifferents are not all equal to each other: health is preferred to sickness, life is preferred to death, and it is entirely reasonable to avoid pain when you can. What indifferent means here is narrower and sharper: these things do not determine whether you are good or bad. Only your judgments, choices and actions do that. A man can face death with cowardice or with courage, and it is the courage, not the death, that carries moral weight.

This is why the passage sits inside meditation 2.11 next to a reflection on mortality. Since you might depart from life at any moment, Marcus writes, regulate every act and thought accordingly (Meditations 2.11). That instruction only makes sense once death has been cleared of being an evil. If death were evil, urgency about it would look like fear. Because death is indifferent, urgency about it can instead be about using the time you have well, which is squarely up to you.

The practical shift is this: stop asking whether pain or death will happen to you, since that was never the axis your worth was measured on. Ask instead whether you are acting with justice, courage, and clear judgment right now, in whatever circumstance you are actually in. That question, unlike the first, is always answerable, and it is always up to you.

Primary passages

Now that which does not make a man worse, how can it make a man's life worse?

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 2.11 Read in context

Marcus states the test up front: only what damages character counts as evil.

But death certainly, and life, honour and dishonour, pain and pleasure, all these things equally happen to good men and bad, being things which make us neither better nor worse.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 2.11 Read in context

The key empirical claim: these things are distributed without regard to virtue or vice.

Therefore they are neither good nor evil.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 2.11 Read in context

The conclusion of the argument, stated as a plain inference.

nor is it possible that it has made so great a mistake, either through want of power or want of skill, that good and evil should happen indiscriminately to the good and the bad.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 2.11 Read in context

Shows the argument is also a defense of Providence, not just a claim about ethics.

Important distinctions

Indifferent versus unimportant

Calling death and pain indifferent does not mean Marcus thinks they do not matter or that you should feel nothing about them. Stoic indifferents are not all equal to each other. Health, life and freedom from pain are preferred indifferents, and it is rational to pursue and prefer them. What indifferent means is narrower: these things do not make you a better or worse person, so they cannot be goods or evils in the strict sense that decides whether your life goes well.

What happens to you versus what you do

Marcus's test separates two categories that are easy to blur: things that happen to a person, like illness or disgrace, and what a person does in response, like facing illness with patience or disgrace with integrity. The first category is indifferent. The second is where good and evil actually live, because it is the only place your character shows itself.

Objections and replies

This looks like it denies that pain is bad for you

A skeptic can point out that pain clearly harms you in an ordinary sense: it damages the body, limits what you can do, and is worth avoiding. Calling it neither good nor evil can sound like it is denying something obvious.

Reply

Marcus is not denying that pain is unpleasant or worth avoiding when possible. He is making a narrower claim about what counts as good or evil in the moral sense that decides whether a life goes well. Pain can be a preferred thing to avoid without being an evil in that stricter sense, since it does not by itself make you a worse person.

The Providence argument seems to assume what it needs to prove

Marcus argues from the premise that the universe is rational and provident to the conclusion that death and pain must be indifferent, since otherwise Providence would look unjust or incompetent. A skeptic can object that this only works if you already accept Stoic physics and its claim about a provident cosmos.

Reply

That is a fair limit to note. Marcus offers two supports in the same passage: an argument from the definition of good and evil that stands on its own, and a theological argument that depends on accepting Stoic providence. A reader can accept the first while treating the second as resting on premises about the cosmos that need independent defense.

Practice this in Stoa

Guided courses in the Stoa app that put this into daily practice.

Related questions

Podcast discussions

Concepts

Works

  • Meditations by Marcus Aurelius A Roman emperor's private notebook of Stoic exercises shows what it looks like to practice philosophy under real pressure, not just write about it.

Sources

  1. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Primary text, Stoa library