You say you care about character, but character is revealed most clearly in how you treat people whose choices you do not understand.
It is easy to respect the respectable. Patience comes naturally with people who agree with us, live in ways we understand, and make mistakes we know how to forgive. The harder test comes when someone disappoints us, embarrasses themselves, behaves foolishly, or becomes someone we find difficult to respect.
We are remarkably good at noticing faults from the outside. Another person’s hypocrisy is obvious to us. Their selfishness, weakness, poor judgment, or lack of discipline can seem almost impossible to miss. Our own failures arrive with context. We remember what led up to them, what we intended, what pressures we were under, and all the other moments that prove we are more than our worst decision.
We rarely know another person with the same depth.
That difference should make us a little more careful.
Most of us carry things we would rather not have used as the final verdict on our character. We have regrets, private weaknesses, moments we handled badly, and decisions that make more sense to us now because we know the person who made them. Yet it is easy to deny that same complexity to someone else and reduce them to whatever they did most recently or most publicly.
Sometimes that is dressed up as accountability. Sometimes accountability is exactly what is required. But there are moments when the satisfaction we take in another person’s failure should make us suspicious of our own motives.
The Stoics repeatedly returned judgment inward for this reason. Before asking what is wrong with another person, it is worth examining what their failure is bringing out in us. Why are we so eager to condemn them? Why can their mistake feel satisfying? Are we trying to understand what went wrong, or using their failure to reassure ourselves about who we are?
We do not become better by finding someone worse.
If someone behaves badly, there are now two questions in front of you. What did they do, and what are you going to become in response to it?
The first belongs largely to them. The second is yours.
That distinction matters because another person’s failure can very easily become permission for our own. Someone lies to us, so bitterness begins to feel justified. Someone behaves arrogantly, and contempt starts to feel like clarity. Someone loses control of themselves, and suddenly we feel entitled to lose control of ourselves in return.
Their behavior explains the situation. It does not decide our character.
Kindness does not require us to ignore what someone has done. Some actions deserve criticism. Some people need to face consequences. There are times when a relationship should end or a boundary should become firm.
The harder question is what we are trying to accomplish once we have decided that someone was wrong.
Correction has a purpose. So do consequences. Humiliation often serves the part of us that wants the other person to feel smaller because of what they did.
That is worth watching in ourselves, because anger can begin with a legitimate grievance and quietly change the goal. We stop asking what the situation requires and start asking what the person deserves to feel.
Hypocrisy makes this especially tempting. A leader may preach principles they fail to live by. A community can speak endlessly about virtue while behaving badly. Someone can quote philosophy beautifully and still act without wisdom when it matters.
Their failure tells us something about them. It tells us very little about whether the principle itself is true.
A philosophy is not disproved by the hypocrisy of the person quoting it.
If someone who praises honesty lies, honesty has not become less valuable. If someone who speaks about self-control loses their temper, self-control has not failed. What failed was the person’s ability to live according to something they claimed to believe.
Our concern is what happens next.
The Stoics were deeply interested in that moment. Marcus Aurelius repeatedly reminded himself to look at the judgment behind another person’s behavior before allowing anger or contempt to determine his response. In one passage he writes:
“When people injure you, ask yourself what good or harm they thought would come of it.”
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 7.26
That question does not excuse the injury. It asks us to understand before we decide how to respond.
Sometimes understanding will lead to patience. Sometimes it will lead to a difficult conversation. Sometimes a boundary needs to be drawn, a relationship needs to end, or someone needs to face the consequences of what they did.
Stoicism does not require us to make every response gentle. It requires us to keep the response under the direction of reason.
There is a difference between recognizing that someone behaved badly and needing to feel above them because of it. One can lead to correction. The other often tells us more about our ego than their mistake.
Perhaps that is the harder standard of character.
Can you see someone clearly without reducing them to what they did? Can you hold them responsible without needing their humiliation? Can you protect yourself without allowing resentment to decide who you become afterward?
We do not become better by finding someone worse.
Other people will continue to disappoint us. They will misunderstand things, make selfish choices, betray their own principles, and sometimes give us very good reasons to walk away.
What they do with their character remains theirs.
What happens to ours in response remains ours.
Stay stoic,
SW
Thanks for reading this far , I genuinely appreciate it.
If you want more essays like this in your inbox, you can subscribe below. I’d be glad to have you here.
And if you’re already subscribed, consider upgrading for access to the full archive.
Continue reading:
Clocked me real bad, loved this post
Love the post. Thanks