(Estimated reading time: 10 minutes)
Many times the fallout from our decisions do not come from a lack of information but from an inaccurate reading of what actually happened, that is early on in the decision-making process.
For example, we overinterpret a delay in response from someone as being disrespectful, or interpret a critique as an attack on our personality, or perceive any difficulties we face as proof that our future is over, or believe that someone else’s aggressive behaviours are an acceptable excuse to display angry behaviours of our own. And when we FINALLY come around to the fact of what has really occurred, we are no longer engaged in the decision process … we have already lost the battle.
Marcus Aurelius faced this issue regularly. In his writings, which we refer to as “Meditations,” Marcus did not present us with a well-defined philosophy of leadership or a theory of decision-making. Instead, he was writing notes to himself as a way of recollecting how to move beyond fear, resentment, arrogance, impatient thinking, and self-pity through identifying the elements that contributed to those thoughts. His writings help him return to the same fundamental question regarding the decision at hand: “What happened, really? What judgment did I add? What would be fair? What action remains with me?”
This kind of repeated exercise throughout the Meditations is extremely valuable today because it reveals an approach to managing your emotions as part of the process of making decisions. So, rather than providing us with some sort of “secret formula,” it reveals an internal strength of a disciplined way to comprehend the situation before emotional reaction takes over. What you will read in this book is a modern reconstruction of that discipline; it does not follow Marcus Aurelius’ order, but instead is a method for putting this series of irregular exercises into a more meaningful sequence, allowing for an organized framework to refer back to when you need to decide prior to giving way to your emotions.
First: separate the event from the story
Marcus always begins his approach with a “forensic investigation” of the situation before he begins formulating an action plan. He is interested to find out exactly what has happened and what evidence is available, rather than relying on people’s opinions of what they believe happened or were there when things occurred.
Let’s say in conflict situations, how do most people respond? They respond based on their perception of the intent of the action, the fear of the repercussions and how the event has reinforced their private narrative about themselves (their vulnerable ego).
For example, a terse email may be interpreted as terse or brusque; however, it could also represent contempt, undermining behaviour, the act of humiliating and/or creating fear/injury to the person receiving the message. In order to be able to make accurate interpretations about other people’s actions or communication, it is essential to gather and analyse evidence based on the facts available.
It is important to keep in mind that Marcus does not advocate that you should engage in “naivety,” he asks us not to let another person’s framing become our framing. He advocates that we should clear away all of the emotion that causes unnecessary confusion and certainty regarding what we think about the first impressions that were created.
When faced with a situation and attempting to determine how to respond appropriately, the first thing you need to do is to state in clear and simple terms the specifics of the event so that anyone who is not involved or has not been personally affected by it could clearly identify it – such as “the proposal was declined”; “there has been no response from the client” and “the other person in the meeting contradicted me.” The other person I trusted didn’t follow through on what they had told me they would do.”
By stating the event using simple language, you will enable yourself to see what is not present in your initial perception. Although you may still be upset and/or experiencing anxiety as a result of the event or you may be experiencing a loss of trust, you will no longer be interpreting the first impression of the event as a fact that will lead to you ultimately feeling powerless, vulnerable, foolish, or hopeless any longer as your experience will now be acknowledged as an interpretation that needs to be verified and tested.
Second: return the decision to the governing faculty
The Stoic term for the ability to judge is the “ruling faculty.” This is why Marcus Aurelius kept coming back to this idea: There are so many things we can outsource our decision-making to, such asreputation, anxiety, habit, being with other people, or needing to get even.
“Take away thy opinion, and then there is taken away the complaint, ‘I have been harmed.’ Take away the complaint, ‘I have been harmed,’ and the harm is taken away.” - Meditations, Book 4
Marcus Aurelius isn’t denying an injury. He isn’t saying to someone who was harmed, “It wasn’t a big deal.” What he’s trying to say is, in a very precise way, that the way that something happens externally (and this could include injuries, damage to property, damage to health, etc.) doesn’t determine the quality of your judgement or your next action. That is still your portion of decision-making ability.
In practical terms, your ruling faculty is the governing part of your life. You should ask yourself the following:
What decision am I about to make merely to escape discomfort?
Am I agreeing because I fear disapproval?
Am I attacking because I cannot bear embarrassment?
Am I postponing because a difficult conversation threatens the identity I prefer to preserve?
This is the private moment on which the protocol turns.
You do not need to control the whole situation. You need to prevent the situation from taking control of the part that remains yours.
Third: measure the action by justice, not by relief
After reducing the initial reaction through deliberation, Marcus also examines this concept by taking a stronger test. A decision is not good merely because it is clever, advantageous, or emotionally satisfying. It must be compatible with justice and with the common good.
In Book 9, he compresses his standard into a single sentence:
“Thy present opinion founded on understanding, and thy present conduct directed to social good, and thy present disposition of contentment with everything which happens - that is enough.”
Regardless of the method by which he puts his thought into practice, the order of events described in the three phases is important.
First, it is an opinion that is grounded in knowledge or an understanding of reality; second, it is a manner in which one chooses to direct their actions to benefit the society or others. Third, it includes a willingness to accept the consequences of what follows. I believe this is significant because it gives a basis to not only the person’s opinion but also to the person’s actions.
Marcus does not begin with acceptance because acceptance can be misused as a cover for avoidance. The Roman emperor’s question is not, “How can I remain personally comfortable?” It is, “What does this situation require from a person whose action affects others?”
This is why Stoicism is not indifference in the shallow sense. A Stoic may decline a dishonest advantage, correct a colleague, defend a boundary, refuse a crowd’s demand, or admit a mistake. These actions can be uncomfortable and may cost reputation or even fail. But they are still preferable to the easier action if they are more just.
When the options are unclear, do not ask only, “Which choice will work?” Ask, “Which choice can I defend without pretending I was powerless?” That question is less glamorous than a search for certainty, but it is far more useful. It moves the decision from image management to character.
Fourth: make your judgement corrigible
Marcus was not advocating stubbornness. One of his most practical instructions is to keep two rules ready: act only on what reason recommends for human benefit, and be willing to change your opinion when someone shows you that you are wrong on grounds of justice or common advantage.
This is a formidable discipline because it denies the ego two common pleasures. The first is the pleasure of being right. The second is the pleasure of never having to revise oneself in public.
A private decision protocol therefore needs an opening for correction. Before acting, ask: What fact, perspective, or person would make me change my mind? If the honest answer is “nothing,” you are no longer examining a decision. You are defending an identity.
This does not mean that every opinion must remain permanently suspended. Decisions often have to be made before perfect information arrives. The point is to distinguish firmness from rigidity. You can act with conviction while remaining loyal to reality rather than to your first version of the story.
Marcus’s standard is instructive: revise the judgement when correction serves what is just or of common advantage. And make sure you do that not because a new position is more pleasant, more fashionable, or more likely to win praise. The protocol is not about becoming endlessly flexible.
It is all about becoming harder to manipulate, including by one’s own vanity.
Fifth: choose the next possible act
Though Stoicism’s practical application comes through the final discipline, it really cements the whole idea that obstacles of any nature will not keep one from doing the “right, sober and considerate” thing.” Even though an obstacle may block the ability of a person to complete one option on their journey, there are many other paths which can allow effort to be redirected toward them. Therefore, an additional opportunity for action is revealed by the fact that a person has stopped wasting all available mental energy, time, etc., attempting to fight with the reality of the obstacle being present.
This is a decisive difference. Passive resignation says:
“There is nothing I can do.”
Stoic practice says:
“This particular route is closed. What duty, option, or truthful action remains?”’
Moreover, the next possible act, when viewed from the perspective of Stoic practice, may be considered by many to be “small.”
For example, you may not have the ability to fix the whole relationship but you can take that phone call that you have dreaded making.
You may not have the ability to change a government or institution, but you can accurately document facts.
You may not have control over a market, but you do have the ability to reduce one unnecessary exposure.
You may not have the ability to force someone else to be fair, but you do have the ability to state the boundary and preserve evidence and not respond to injustice by committing further injustice.
Marcus Aurelius adds another uncomfortable thought:
“You would rather be considered good tomorrow than good today.”
This statement helps eliminate the fantasy that tomorrow will make better choices due to improved moods, lower stakes or some greater level of preparedness of the Self. The reality is in many decisions, the next responsible act that can be taken is there and clearly visible. The “reason” this next act is delayed is NOT a result of confusion; rather, it is due to the reluctance of the individual.
The protocol under pressure
Imagine that a colleague has publicly taken credit for work you completed. What would your initial reaction be? Probably anger, humiliation, a desire to expose them in return.
So, begin with the event. The colleague presented the work without acknowledging your contribution. That is the fact. “They are trying to destroy my career” may be true, but it is not yet established. “Everyone now thinks I am irrelevant” is a prediction, not evidence.
Return to the governing faculty. The urge to retaliate may be understandable, but what action are you about to take merely to relieve anger? A public accusation may be justified in some circumstances; it may also convert a correct grievance into a spectacle. The question is not whether you feel anger. The question is whether anger should draft the message.
Measure the action by justice. What is fair to you, to the colleague, to the team, and to the truth of the work? Perhaps the next act is a calm request to correct the record. Perhaps it is a factual conversation with a manager. Perhaps it is documentation. The answer depends on the situation, but the standard is steady: act in a way that could be defended as fair even if nobody applauds it.
Keep the judgement corrigible. Are you missing information? Was the presentation organised by someone else? Is there an interpretation that reduces your certainty without excusing the omission? Find out before turning an affront into a verdict.
Then act. Do not call delay “wisdom” if the actual task is simply difficult. The Stoic decision is not complete when you understand it. It is complete when the next appropriate act has been done.
Not a system for becoming invulnerable
Capturing Marcus Aurelius’ words in a mechanised manner to derive a perfect state of constant serenity is a mistake. He reminds us through his writing of those things which he needed to be reminded about, this requires repetition. Therefore, when he discusses matters such as death, reputation, anger, duty, and uncertainly, it is not because he has solved them; rather, it is because we can find that someone may lose clarity multiple times during the day due to any number of reasons.
The foundation of private discipline of Marcus Aurelius does not produce an invulnerable mind. Instead, it produces an ability to recover from all the negative experiences of life i.e. insults, uncertainty, grief, desire, fear, etc. You will still feel those things but you will be able to identify when you allow your emotions to control your judgment instead of being based on rational or logical evidence. You can return to the evidence, return to the standard, accept the correction from yourself, and take the next action based on your understanding of what a just action is.
This is what Marcus Aurelius has left for us. It is not a way to win every decision you need to make but a way to create a discipline around your decision-making so that you do not allow the temporary feelings of the moment to steal your ability to create a just decision.
By Dr Ioannis Syrigos
References
Kamtekar, Rachana. “Marcus Aurelius.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2025. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcus-aurelius/
Marcus Aurelius. Meditations, Books 4, 8, and 9. Translated by George Long. Internet Classics Archive. https://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.4.four.html; https://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.8.eight.html; https://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.9.nine.html