Stoicism vs Kant: two schools of thought deeply preoccupied with morality and honorable human conduct, that advocate for employing reason to navigate any moral quandary. Which one should you look towards for moral guidance? 

What can they teach us about using rationality to make ethical choices? Stay tuned, cause you’re about to find out. 

We’ll first look at what each philosophy stands for, then we will compare them to see where they are in agreement and what sets them apart.

Stoicism Explained Briefly

Stoicism - a 2000-year old school of thought currently experiencing a revival - is a philosophy that offers a practical approach to life, centered around resilience, personal development and (moral) discipline.

If you’ve been paying attention recently, you might have heard about a Stoic concept already - the Dichotomy of Control, which represents the understanding that every circumstance one may encounter falls squarely in one of two categories: what is up to us and what isn’t.

Examined with this lens, external events and other people's actions lie outside of our power to change, but our own thoughts, responses and attitude towards life remains firmly under our control.

You should also know that for a Stoic, the most worthwhile human endeavor is the pursuit of moral excellence through the cultivation of the virtues of wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance. This is within reach for everyone, regardless of their lot in life, because it only depends on our behavior (which is always in our power to adjust).

To help students thrive, Stoicism provides a set of practices that strengthen resilience and cultivate emotional well-being. I’ve written about them elsewhere on the blog, so be sure to check these posts about practicing voluntary discomfort, taking the view from above, or keeping mortality top of mind if you’re curious. 

The Philosophy of Kant in a Nutshell

Immanuel Kant was an 18th century German philosopher active during the Enlightenment, a cultural movement characterized by rationalism, individualism and the proliferation of science. 

Kant believed that all humans are endowed with rationality and autonomy, which makes them capable of acting in accordance with moral law. In his view, this implies that we should let our sense of duty, rather than our personal desires, guide us through life.

He points towards critical thinking and rationality as our best allies in making sound moral judgments, but posits that knowledge is a combination of both innate concepts and sensory experience. 

He explains that while our minds possess certain a priori knowledge, which is independent of experience, this knowledge can only be understood and applied through our sensory perceptions. 

Stoicism and Kant: What Do They Have in Common?

There are many parallels between Stoicism and Kantian philosophy, most notably their shared love of rationality, their focus on virtue as the most worthwhile human goal and their dedication towards self-discipline. 

Emphasis on rationality

Both Stoicism and Kantian philosophy see rationality as the only reliable gateway towards understanding the world and determining the best way to behave in it. 

In Stoicism, reason is the guiding principle of the Universe and we would do well to embrace it in our thinking in order to satisfy the Stoic imperative of living in accordance with nature. Doing so will bring about inner peace (tranquility) because we will not waste our energy opposing realities that cannot be changed.

Similarly, Kant's philosophy also encourages us to use rational principles to guide our behavior, as this will aid us in making ethical choices. The alternative - being driven by subjective desires or external influences - risks leading us morally astray. 

Virtue (moral duty) as the ultimate human goal

Ethical behavior is a central theme for both Stoicism and Kantian philosophy, which see the fulfillment of our moral duty as the chief task in life. 

In Stoicism, this is expressed as the pursuit of virtue (moral excellence), which can be cultivated by living in accordance with the laws of the universe, while for Kant this is a matter of acting according to the so-called “categorical imperatives” - a set of moral rules that can be applied universally.

For both Stoics and Kantians, the moral worth of an action is not a function of its outcomes, but can be derived from the intention that inspired it. 

Importance of self-discipline and self-control

Even if their reasoning differs, both Stoicism and Kant underscore the importance of self-control and self-discipline. 

For a Stoic, mastery over oneself is pivotal to facing adversity and maintaining inner peace, while for Kant it is essential for ethical living when faced with the temptations and tribulations of existence.

Stoicism vs Kant: How They Differ

Despite the similarities we’ve already explored, Stoicism and Kantian philosophy differ in important ways. Their most notable dissimilarities refer to the scope of their focus, their stance on human happiness and the role of emotions. 

Focus on the Individual vs the Outside World

A fundamental difference between Stoicism and Kant lies in where they advise us to direct our focus. 

Stoicism pleads for maintaining an inward focus because only our thoughts and conduct are ultimately up to us, and thus essential for maintaining tranquility amidst external turmoil. 

On the other hand, Kant argues that our focus should be directed towards the external world and the pursuit of knowledge, which will offer a deeper understanding of ourselves.

View on Happiness

Stoicism and Kant do not agree on the universal possibility of human happiness. 

For a Stoic, happiness (or rather, eudaimonia) is always within reach because it revolves around the pursuit of a meaningful existence, which is pleasurable in and of itself and does not depend on external factors.

In contrast, Kant believed that doing one's duty can sometimes conflict with personal happiness, but that duty should always take precedence. In this sense, happiness is not a given for a Kantian.

Role of Emotions

Another important point of divergence of Stoicism vs Kant is the role of emotions, especially as it relates to decision-making. 

While both philosophies regard emotions as a natural part of the human condition, Stoicism encourages us to master them and prevent them from clouding our judgment. This does not automatically mean that emotions should be repressed (that’s a common misconception about Stoicism), but simply that reason should prevail when making decisions.

Kant takes a different stance and argues that emotions play a crucial role in guiding our moral actions, serving as moral motivators that prompt individuals to act ethically. For him, a decision spurred by emotion is not necessarily problematic.

Conclusion 

You’re now familiar with the main similarities and differences of Stoicism vs Kant, so the only question that remains is which philosophy you feel most drawn to. 

Perhaps the best question to ask yourself is whether you believe there are universal moral rules that should be followed at all times (Kant) or whether what constitutes moral behavior is situational (Stoicism). 

One thing is for sure - if you’ve narrowed it down to these two, I’m willing to bet that morality is of central focus to you, so whichever you pick, I’m sure you will be an excellent human. Keep up the good work!

However, if you’re still on the lookout for a school of thought to guide you through life, why not check out this post about Stoicism vs Realism or this one about Stoicism vs Pragmatism?