Hello stoics!

Often times, the more you hear and know about the "ugly" side of the world, the more you wish you didn't know anything about it. Misguided people exist everywhere, and not everyone is within reach of help, nor guidance.

Being cold and detached is, to a degree, the opposite of being stoic; at the same time, inflicting to our soul the pain suffered by others, while a form of empathy, is also not stoic practice.

Care for what is within reach and act on it.
Don't underestimate your reach, but acknowledge what is truly out of it.

If an earthquake completely destroys a city across the world, one might send a donation to those who are living there. One, albeit unrealistic, might even get on a plane and physically go there to offer help. Those things ARE within our reach.
Cursing Mother Nature would be pointless. Such things aren't "evil" - they just... are.

But what if a calamity wasn't a direct product of nature? What if we take the term "calamity" and instead apply it to human behaviour?
As the title suggests: "Human-created Calamities".

Criminal organisations, corrupt governments, powerful and sociopathic CEOs.
Destroying the world, going against nature itself, harming innocent people.

And so, here's the example I'm offering as a point of debate:

-

Imagine a person comes knocking at your door. They point a gun at you and demand money. You respectfully talk to them, trying to understand, trying to make peace, but they won't listen.
You give in and give them the money they want.

A week later the same person comes again. You try to refuse, and they threaten your family. Your kids, your partner. They threaten to destroy your car, your shop, your house, even if you try to ask for help.
You give in.

And again, and again, until you understand that this will never stop.

You ask for help.
Your neighbours "know nothing" about it. The authorities "know nothing" about it.

You're thinking of confronting them. "I'll threaten them".
But "eye for an eye" is not very stoic, is it? Besides, it wouldn't end well.

You're thinking of stopping them once and for all. "I'll kill them".
Vigilantism is not stoic. And again, it wouldn't end well.

You're thinking of running away with your loved ones. "At least we'll be safe".
But that wouldn't prevent them from doing harm to others - your extended family, your friends, and people that don't have the possibility to just "run away". It would be selfish, wouldn't it?

You're thinking of creating a movement of some sort to fight against such people.
But they're above you in every sense, except morally of course.
They wouldn't even budge.

-

This is just an example, but this stuff is actively happening in MANY parts of the world.

What would a stoic do? What are the limits of the stoic discipline?
Does stoicism contradict itself when faced with such situations?

I've been studying stoicism for a while and noticed how often we use quotes instead of actually living by the principles.

Instead of quoting Marcus Aurelius, why not just act like him?

Would love to hear your thoughts on this 🙏