Can The Soldier Be Virtuous?

A strategic Stoic perspective

A short while ago I read posts by

Jeff Boss

and was intrigued and impressed by his description of the warrior versus the warfighter. In Jeff’s own words, the warfighter is “rooted in one extreme and one extreme only: destruction. That’s it. Your job is to wage war and take out the trash.” Furthermore, in Jeff’s words, “If being a warfighter is half of the equation, then the other half is being a warrior… [which] means demonstrating vulnerability, acceptance, love, and patience. You are balanced.” Jeff’s definitions of warrior and warfighter have fascinating overlap with my definitions of what I refer to as the three manifestations of the Platonic Fighter form. In those manifestations I identify three Fighter forms: the barbarian, the warrior, and the soldier. For this discussion, we will examine the “warrior” versus the soldier while also comparing them somewhat to Jeff’s warrior and warfighter for expanded perspective. In particular, we will ask and answer the following question: Can the soldier be virtuous?

First, terminology must be established. The terms themselves are meaningless; they are just words. It is the definition behind each that matters.

Soldier:

• Trained in various combat techniques, may specialize in ancillary tasks, but at the core, the soldier is a fighter. Victory through conflict is the soldier’s business.

• Swears loyalty to tribe, flag, and the chain of command above all.

• Is trained to obey, not question. Even if it is argued the good soldier knows when to question orders and will not follow illegal/unethical orders, this is not the core expected behavior; questioning orders carries the risk of severe penalties.

• Can be ordered to kill, suppress, or invade regardless of personal moral judgment.

• Success is measured in obedience, team effectiveness, and military mission completion.

Warrior:

• Trained in various combat techniques, will specialize in many ancillary abilities, but at the core, the warrior is a fighter. Victory through conflict is also the warrior’s business.

• Swears loyalty to tradition, respect, family, duty to others, and personal honor.

• Is trained to question and rarely obeys unquestioningly.

• Can be ordered to kill, suppress, or invade against personal ethical judgment but will rarely obey such orders, at least not fully.

• Success is measured in personal skill, personal effectiveness, and personal mission completion.

From these definitions, it is obvious Jeff’s warfighter and my soldier are the same person, just with different terms. Side Note: No disrespect is intended to those actual soldiers who favor the term “warrior” for themselves; we are simply labeling here for the purpose of discourse.

Conversely, Jeff’s warrior is not my warrior, even though there is interesting overlap. Jeff’s “warrior,” within this discussion, would be better referred to as the “enlightened soldier.” In Jeff’s words, the warfighter is only half the equation, but it is half, while the other half is the “warrior,” and it is in this other side where resides reason, empathy, emotional intelliegnce, and introspection. Therefore, “the warrior” (in Jeff’s terms) is an enhancement to the warfighter to make the warfighter more virtuous, more enlightened, and more introspective (a commendable and noble purpose).

As a whole, Jeff’s more enlightened warrior/soldier combination I would term the “soldier-philosopher,” who at their core remains a soldier (warfighter), albeit an enlightened one. In a very similar fashion, I also identify the warrior-philosopher, which is an extension of my warrior definition. The warrior-philosopher is the one who takes the next step in Stoic virtue, becoming the strategic Stoic.

Warrior-Philosopher:

• Trained in various combat techniques, as well as equally trained in philosophy, art, science, and mathematics. Balance is not optional or additional; it is foundational.

• Swears loyalty to reason and Stoic virtue comprised of the core virtues: courage, temperance, wisdom, and justice. Duty is to fellow humans within the bounds of virtue, irrespective of borders, flags, or tribe.

• Always questions. Never obeys unquestioningly.

• Can never be ordered to kill, suppress, or invade against personal ethical judgment.

• Success is measured in personal skill, personal effectiveness, and personal mission completion, strictly within Stoic virtue, and strictly balanced between the physical and mental in equal measure.

“Too much music softens and relaxes the soul... while too much gymnastics makes it hard and unyielding. Therefore, we must blend the two so that the soul becomes gentle and spirited.”—Plato, Republic 3.410c–412a

“He who is only an athlete is too crude, too vulgar, too much a savage. He who is a scholar only is too soft. The ideal citizen is the scholar-athlete, the man of thought and the man of action.”—unknown

To avoid confusion and for ease of reference, from this point forward, I will refer to Jeff’s warfighter as the soldier and Jeff’s warrior as the “enlightened soldier” or soldier-philosopher, both of which remain at their core, soldiers (warfighters). I will use my “warrior” definitions as given above.

With basic terminology established, we can return to the question, “Can the soldier be virtuous?” which requires we first define virtue. Virtue is a complex word that has many modern connotations; however, virtue ethics as established by the ancient Greek philosophers is fairly firm in its definition. Using the classical definition, virtue is a trait of excellence, including traits that may be moral, ethical, social, or intellectual. The cultivation and refinement of virtue is held to be the “good of humanity” and thus is valued as an end purpose of life or a foundational principle of being.

“Virtue is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean... this being determined by reason and as a man of practical wisdom would determine it.”—Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, II.6

“Virtue is the only good; vice the only evil; and all else is indifferent.”—Chrysippus, fragment

“We are born for cooperation, like feet, hands, eyelids, the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act against one another then is contrary to nature.”—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 2.1

Probably no one would argue with that basic definition, but there is a lot open to interpretation. In particular, the “good of humanity” has been used by everyone from Nazis to right- and left-wing revolutionaries to crusaders, invaders, pacifists, isolationists, colonizers, missionaries, etc., all of whom claim virtuousness. That said, for this discussion we will strictly adhere to the classic definitions at face value.

In that context, classical and Stoic virtue is defined by the four cardinal virtues, derived from Socratic and Platonic traditions and formalized by Stoics like Zeno and Chrysippus, later echoed by Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius.

• Courage (ἀνδρεία): Endurance, rational resistance, and action in the face of fear and pain; facing adversity in accordance with reason.

• Wisdom (σοφία): Understanding what is good, bad, and indifferent, and knowing how to choose rightly. Wisdom requires judgment of what is just and ethical, which itself requires profound knowledge of surrounding circumstances. Blind action is never acceptable.

• Justice (δικαιοσύνη): Treating others rightly; fulfilling one’s role and obligations in the cosmic polis (universal society). Borders, flags, tribes, and ideology are not cause for withholding justice.

• Temperance (σωφροσύνη): Self-control and moderation; not being ruled by pleasure, desire, or impulse.

The Stoics held that virtue is knowledge and the highest good. Virtue is not a set of actions but a state of understanding. To act virtuously is to act with full knowledge of what is good, bad, and indifferent. Further, virtue is a unity; you cannot possess one virtue without the others. For example, you cannot be just without also being wise and temperate. Virtue is an integrated whole, a harmonious logos in both form and action. Most importantly, in practice, virtue is demonstrated through assent and action. The Stoic understands that every moment presents impressions (φαντασίαι). The task of the virtuous is not to react but to pause, examine, and judge each impression by reason. The virtuous then gives or withholds assent (συγκατάθεσις) according to whether the impression aligns with virtue—wisdom, justice, courage, or temperance. Action (πρᾶξις) flows only after right assent. Thus, virtue is not a single decision but a disciplined sequence—impression, judgment, assent, impulse, and action. Without right assent, virtue is impossible. Without disciplined judgment, the soul is ruled by impulse, not logos.

“From the right use of impressions comes the right use of impulses; from the right use of impulses comes actions; from right actions, a virtuous life.”—Epictetus, Discourses 3.8.1

“Appearances to the mind are of four kinds: things are and appear so; or are not, and appear so; or are, and do not appear so; or are not, and do not appear so. The task of the wise man is to test appearances and act according to reason.”—Epictetus, Discourses, 1.28.1

Now we can assess the soldier (including the enlightened soldier-philosopher) versus the warrior-philosopher and assess virtue. The strategic Stoic warrior-philosopher is not a soldier and cannot be. The warrior-philosopher may serve, but only under conditions that make true soldiering impossible:

• The strategic Stoic warrior-philosopher does not obey if the order contradicts virtue. This includes refusal to obey from lack of full knowledge. The strategic Stoic warrior-philosopher does not assume virtue just because of tribe, flag, or external assurances they are “doing the right thing.”

• The strategic Stoic warrior-philosopher will fight, but only for a cause they have personally judged just with full knowledge of the cause and purpose.

• The strategic Stoic warrior-philosopher will harm or even kill, but never under blind orders from another. No blind action is permissible.

• The strategic Stoic warrior-philosopher will walk away from tribe, flag, even life, if that is what virtue demands. Virtue is supreme over tribe and flag.

• The strategic Stoic warrior-philosopher is a master of violence, not a tool of violence.

Similarly, the soldier, even the enlightened soldier-philosopher, cannot be Stoic and therefore cannot be a warrior-philosopher in the Stoic sense. They may adopt some Stoic teachings and use some Stoic ideas to further their enlightenment, but they cannot be a true Stoic.

• The soldier obeys orders, even if those orders contradict virtue. If they refuse to obey, they may be punished—severely. Even if the soldier chooses to obey virtue and refuse an unvirtuous order, the system under which the soldier operates will not permit virtue over orders.

• The soldier fights for a cause the tribe has judged as just regardless of personal beliefs or true justice and typically fights without full knowledge of the decisions to fight. A soldier is told what they need to know to execute.

• The soldier may kill under blind orders from another, and in fact, this is a core required trait.

• The soldier must never walk away from the tribe and flag. Loyalty to tribe and flag is paramount. Breaking loyalty is unforgivable and literally punishable by death.

• The soldier, enlightened or not, is literally a tool of violence.

As defined by the Stoics and classical Greek virtue ethic philosophers, clearly, we must conclude…

No, the soldier cannot be virtuous.

“No man is free who is not master of himself.”—Epictetus, Discourses 4.1

“What then makes a man free? The power to live according to his own reasoned choice.”—Epictetus, Discourses 4.1

“The wise man will not act unjustly, even if commanded.”—Chrysippus, fragment

“That which is not just is not law.”—Seneca, Letters, 95.2

Further examination of the core virtues demonstrates the soldier cannot maintain unity in virtue and therefore cannot be virtuous.

• Courage ✅ The soldier can be courageous, and in fact, this is a requirement. There is no contradiction here.

• Wisdom 🚫 The soldier is rarely, if ever, given full knowledge at the highest and most critical levels. Soldiers do not receive full political disclosure nor full knowledge of history and circumstances before being ordered to deploy and engage. They are given a distilled and operationally necessary view, including political and ideological definitions of who is the “bad guy” and who isn’t. The true Stoic would demand absolute proof of enemy virtue before engaging, while it is literally the soldier’s job is to execute regardless of that proof. True Stoic virtue requires moment-by-moment judgment of virtue, logic, and reason. The soldier is afforded no such luxury, and if they were, it would render them paralyzed.

• Justice 🚫 ✅ Stoic justice requires treating others rightly regardless of tribe, lines on a map, or ideologies. Stoic justice is to the universal society, not to a single state. In this, the soldier may execute justice and likely often does; however, the soldier can also be ordered to violate justice, and they must comply. Even if the individual soldier maintains justice, they operate in a collective that does not always do so, and they have sworn allegiance to that collective. Unacceptable to the true Stoic and to virtue.

• Temperance 🚫 ✅ Similar to justice, the individual soldier can demonstrate temperance, but if the collective violates temperance, the temperate soldier must still adhere to the collective. The soldier is at the mercy of the collective, and in that, temperance cannot be served unquestioningly. Unacceptable to the true Stoic and to virtue.

In the classic definition of virtue, the soldier cannot be a true Stoic nor be virtuous by the standards of foundational virtue ethics or Stoicism. If for no other reason, there is one overriding trait of the soldier that defies virtue—obedience. Even if we were to argue the soldier does not have blind obedience and can, for example, defy illegal or unethical orders, there is one simple fact that cannot be denied: all soldier actions flow from loyalty and duty to tribe, flag, and collective ideology. Service and obedience to the collective are core and supreme. The soldier literally swears an oath to uphold the precepts of the tribe and to defend the tribe at all costs; tribal brotherhood stands above all. There is little that could be less Stoic or less virtuous according to the founders of virtue ethics. Obedience to tribe over reason is not virtuous—ever.

“I am a citizen of the universe.”—Epictetus, Discourses 1.9

“Reason alone rules those who are free.”—Seneca, On the Happy Life, 1.3

“If someone else controls your acts, they control your soul.”—Stoic principle, paraphrased

True virtue flows from right action, and right action follows from correct assent according to the core virtues. Correct virtuous assent supersedes tribe, flag, borders, brotherhood, and the collective. For the Stoic, right is right, wrong is wrong, and each exists strictly according to core virtues—regardless of tribe. If necessary, the virtuous true Stoic fighter must abandon mission, brothers, tribe, and whoever or whatever is needed to maintain virtue. More to the point, the virtuous true Stoic fighter would never put themselves in that position in the first place.

While the Stoic conclusion is that the soldier cannot be virtuous, this should not be taken as a “worse than” or “better than” comparison. There is no qualitative hierarchy implied, such as “the warrior-philosopher is better than the soldier because they are virtuous.” No—absolutely not. The soldier is absolutely critical, necessary. and indispensable to the defense and integrity of the state. Without the soldier, there is no state (at least not for long). While it is a dubious honor, someone has to abandon virtue so the rest of us are afforded a life in which to maintain it. That someone is the soldier, unvirtuous but necessary.

Using myself as an example, I cannot be a soldier. I cannot be a warfighter, nor could I even be a “warrior” in Jeff Boss’ definition of the word. I will not blindly follow any order. If ordered to kill, I would require an enumeration of each person and their life and why they each in turn deserve to die. If you tell me someone is the “bad guy,” I will tell you, “prove it” and I will not act until you do—virtuously. It’s not that I’m violence averse; I have zero problem with violence, and I will defend myself or family swiftly and violently if needed. Further, I have even chosen a very militaristic lifestyle, and by my behavior, appearance, and demeanor, most think I am military (I am not). I am fascinated (almost obsessively) by personal combat; I love to fight, and I am trained in various martial arts, self-defense techniques, and a wide array of weaponry (primarily by ex-military). I spent almost two decades competing in personal combat and working jobs that purposefully put me in positions where I was forced to fight (just because I like it). I live a hyper-disciplined, ordered life and speak militaristically, often using words like “directive,” “order,” and “mission.” I am quite capable of engaging an enemy and committing violence and have done so more than once, but I will not do so under the orders of another nor without all core virtues maintained. I hold virtue and ethics above desire, patriotism, tribalism, religion, and brotherhood. In fact, I abandoned all of those wholesale in favor of Stoic virtue.

“If it is not right, do not do it. If it is not true, do not say it.”—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 12.17

A harsh truth about me I have to admit: if you and I are “brothers-in-arms,” be it actual military, or corporate, or friends, and you break virtue and try to take me with you down an unvirtuous path, I will break loyalty to you. My loyalty to anything or anyone is conditional on virtue, and that is precisely what virtue is. Virtue is as virtue does. That said, imagine how it would be if soldiers were actually virtuous. It would be disastrous. A soldier cannot be virtuous in the classic ideal, or they would be paralyzed and rendered completely ineffective. Virtue is not a positive trait for the soldier; it is a critical and terminal weakness. While virtue for the warrior-philosopher is paramount and is both sword and shield, it would be a critical weakness for the soldier, easily exploited by the enemy to disastrous effect.

In various measures, a soldier can be ethical, kind, sympathetic, empathetic, honest, loyal, courageous, disciplined, and a host of other positive things, but virtuous? No, absolutely not, not in the classical or Stoic sense.

Fortunately for the rest of us.

---

Thanks to

Jeff Boss

for allowing me to use his name and reference his work and for giving me the inspiration for this discussion.