Skip to content

Question

How does Marcus Aurelius say we should respond when someone wrongs us?

You will learn Marcus Aurelius's own answer to being wronged: leave the other person's disposition to him, and attend to your own.

Updated

The short answer

Marcus Aurelius says that when someone wrongs you, the wrong belongs to the person who did it: let him look to it, since he has his own disposition and his own activity to answer for. Your task is separate and remains fully your own, to keep doing what your own nature requires regardless of what he did. Being wronged is not itself a good or an evil, since things like this fall on good and bad people alike, and what makes your life better or worse is your own character, not another person's choice.

Key points

  • Marcus Aurelius answers the question of being wronged by assigning the wrongdoer's act to him alone: let him look to it.
  • The wrongdoer's disposition and activity are his own faculty of choice, not something you need to manage or absorb.
  • In Meditations 2.11 Marcus argues that things which happen equally to good and bad people, including harms done to us, are neither good nor evil.
  • Your own task after being wronged is unrelated to the other person's fault: to keep doing what your own nature wills.
  • The passage is not a call to ignore injustice, but a claim about where good and bad actually reside, in character and choice rather than in what is done to you.

The longer answer

Marcus poses the question to himself directly. Does another do me wrong? Let him look to it. He has his own disposition, his own activity (Meditations 5.25). The wrongdoer's character and choices belong to him. They are his to account for, not yours to absorb.

This is easy to misread as indifference to justice, as if Marcus is saying wrongdoing does not matter or should go unanswered. That is not the claim. The claim is about where your attention and your judgment of good and bad should fall. The other person's wrong is his own act, produced by his own faculty of choice. What happens to you as a result, the insult, the loss, the inconvenience, is a different matter entirely, and Marcus has already worked out what kind of thing that is.

Earlier in the same book he lays out the reasoning. Death, life, honor, dishonor, pain, and pleasure all happen equally to good people and bad people, and none of these make a person better or worse. Because they happen indiscriminately to the good and the bad, they are neither good nor evil (Meditations 2.11). Being wronged is one more thing that lands on good and bad people alike. It cannot be the thing that makes your life worse, because only your own judgments and choices can do that. The universe has not overlooked this, Marcus insists, nor has it made the mistake of scattering harm without regard for character. What is genuinely up to you, your own disposition and activity, remains untouched by what someone else does.

So when Marcus writes let him look to it, he is not shrugging off the wrong. He is refusing to let another person's bad choice dictate the state of his own faculty of choice. The wrongdoer has already damaged himself, since acting badly is the real harm in Stoic terms, an injury to his own character. Your task is unrelated to his: I now have what the universal nature wills me to have, and I do what my nature now wills me to do. In other words, your job is to keep doing what is yours to do, regardless of what he did.

What changes for someone who takes this seriously is where the argument with the wrongdoer actually ends. You stop needing him to apologize, to admit fault, or to suffer, in order for your own day to go well. Your peace was never actually in his hands, even though anger tempts you to act as if it were. The practical shift is from asking what do I owe this person in return to asking what does my own character require of me right now. Those are separate questions, and only the second one is fully up to you.

A concrete way to apply this: the next time someone wrongs you, notice the pull to make his correction the condition of your own composure. Separate the two questions out loud, even briefly. What he did is his to answer for. What you do next is yours. Then act on the second question alone, since it is the only one you actually control.

Primary passages

Does another do me wrong? Let him look to it. He has his own disposition, his own activity. I now have what the universal nature wills me to have; and I do what my nature now wills me to do.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 5.25 Read in context

Marcus's direct answer: the wrongdoer's act is his own, and your task is separate from it.

But death certainly, and life, honour and dishonour, pain and pleasure, all these things equally happen to good men and bad, being things which make us neither better nor worse. Therefore they are neither good nor evil.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 2.11 Read in context

The underlying reasoning: things that fall equally on good and bad people, including being wronged, cannot themselves be good or bad.

Important distinctions

Letting it go versus letting him look to it

Let him look to it is not the same as deciding the wrong does not matter or should not be addressed. It is a claim about accounting: the wrongdoer answers for his own disposition and activity. What you do about the situation, including seeking justice, is a separate question from whether his wrong can damage your own character. Marcus is answering the second question, not settling the first.

The harm done to you versus the harm he did to himself

For Marcus, acting badly is itself the deeper injury, one the wrongdoer does to his own character. The inconvenience or pain you suffer is a different, external matter. Confusing the two makes you think his bad act automatically makes your life worse, when in Stoic terms only your own judgments and choices can do that.

Objections and replies

This sounds like it excuses the wrongdoer

Saying let him look to it can sound like Marcus is washing his hands of accountability, leaving bad behavior unanswered and unaddressed.

Reply

Marcus is not telling you to abandon justice or refuse to respond. He is separating two questions that anger tends to fuse together: what should be done about the wrong, and whether the wrong can make your own life worse. He answers only the second, arguing that it cannot, since it falls on good and bad people alike and does not touch your own disposition.

It is unrealistic to feel nothing when wronged

Telling yourself that being wronged is neither good nor evil can feel like denial, since the sting of injustice is real and immediate.

Reply

Marcus is working from the Stoic view that the sting is a judgment added to the event, not the event itself. The point is not to feel nothing, since first reactions are involuntary, but to notice that your composure and character do not actually depend on what the other person did. That is a claim to test against experience, not a demand to suppress feeling.

Practice this in Stoa

Guided courses in the Stoa app that put this into daily practice.

Related questions

Podcast discussions

Concepts

  • The dichotomy of control You will learn why Epictetus draws a hard line between what is up to us and what is not, and why that line is about identity and value, not stress management.
  • Indifferents: what is neither good nor bad Learn why the Stoics called wealth, health, and even death indifferent, and why that word does not mean unimportant.

Works

  • Meditations by Marcus Aurelius A Roman emperor's private notebook of Stoic exercises shows what it looks like to practice philosophy under real pressure, not just write about it.

Sources

  1. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Primary text, Stoa library