Cicero idealized a stoic viewpoint that was prone to misinterpretation and translation errors. He is less convincing than Gandhi in regards to political violence, because his stoic rhetoric indicated that he had little concern for justifying political violence beyond name-calling. He indicated political violence is applicable in some situations is in his De Officiis, Book III, where he wrote, “Still who would say that he commits a crime who assassinates a tyrant, however close a friend? The people of Rome, I tell you, think it no crime, but the noblest of all noble deeds” (Cicero Para 1). Here he merely accounts for the observation that Romans think political violence is noble, but doesn’t indicate his own opinion in this translation. Cicero implies the will of the people is what is right in taking a utilitarian stance.
Later Cicero indicated that only “bitter feud”, despoiling, banishment and severance were appropriate forms of interaction for tyrants, possibly as surrogates for physical violence in instances where, “it is morally right to kill,” (Cicero Miller Loc. 3745/7164). Cicero maintains his own stoic stance except in places where he appears to appease the readers by presenting utilitarian viewpoints in cases where Romans had collective opinions. The anthology passage reads as if sequestration may be the actual intended action to be taken toward a tyrant.
Where Cicero laid the groundwork in establishing stoic values and imbuing them with agency and presence, more convincing folks like Gandhi applied his rhetoric for better utility. I consider Gandhi’s approach to non-violence to be one of the most convincing arguments for it. In his, The Doctrine of the Sword, he describes the mindset that was associated with non-violence that lead to his eventual assassination. Consider the passage that reads, “Non-resistance is restraint voluntarily undertaken for the good of society. It is, therefore, an intensely active, purifying, inward force … It is rooted in internal strength, never weakness. It must be consciously exercised.” (Gandhi para. 20).
Gandhi’s prose style reads as if it’s a conversation with the reader. He clearly defines his abstract concept of non-violence. He does this using an active “I” voice in his writing, where he can. He uses a moral absolutist stance to explain that non-violence is a “law of our species”. He differentiates non-violence from pacifism and in doing so incorporates limited instances where violence is justified such as in the cat and mouse example.
Works Cited
Cicero, Marcus Tullius, and Miller, Walter. De Officiis (On Duties) (Translated and Annotated). Translated by Walter Miller, The Macmillan Co., 1913, Amazon, https://read.amazon.com/? asin=B01A7RJ9H0&ref_=kwl_kr_iv_rec_1, Accessed 30 Sept. 2024.
Cicero. No Fellowship with Tyrants Exerpt from De Officiis, Book III. Quoted in Walter Laqueur, ed., The Terrorism Reader: A Historical Anthology. American Library. New York. 1978. https://alt- 5deff46c33361.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-14107465-dt-content-rid-108432264_1/ courses/24fallmetis420_o1/course/course_docs/IS420_NoFellowshipWithTyrants.docx. Accessed 24Sep2024.
Gandhi, Mahatma, and Tolstoy Leo. “The Gita and Satyagraha The Philosophy of Non-Violence and The Doctrine of the Sword : A Letter from Tolstoy to Gandhi.” Mahatma Gandhi, www.mkgandhi.org/swmgandhi/chap02.php. Accessed 30 Sept. 2024.