I've been reading many of your posts on Stoic philosophy. From what I've observed, the problems with the philosophy are that it's far too vague, it requires too much thinking and nuance, and the combination of both problems results in a general confusion about what's right and wrong.

For example, what does it mean to "improve the human cosmopolis?" Adolf Hitler thought he was improving the human cosmopolis when he tried to rid the world of Jews. From his point of view, he was acting with virtue, eliminating a menace to the cosmopolis. When something so viscerally awful and wrong can be justified without a great deal of mental gymnastics, then the vagueness of the notion of "improving the cosmopolis" is not just meaningless, it's actually harmful.

I don't believe the Stoics are wrong, and there is a core of truth in ethics pointing to the greater good, but when we lack agreement on what constitutes the greater good, and when individuals can use the idea to justify non-virtue, the idea misses the mark.

I would posit a different definition, one proposed by Tibetan Buddhism, that is somewhat less prone to disagreement and that points to the same thing.

In Tibetan Buddhism, the root of all non-virtue is self-cherishing. Whenever you are putting your own interests above the interests of others, your motivation is non-virtuous, and you are not engaging in Right Thought. Since the mind is the forerunner of all things, without Right Thought, you won't engage in Right Action, and your behavior will not be virtuous.

The goal of spiritual practice in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition is to eliminate the motivations of the Self. In fact, they teach the Self is an illusion and should be treated as such. A Virtuous motivation is one where you exchange yourself with others and work to meet the needs and wants of other people -- you work for the good of the cosmopolis, but you do so through meeting the needs of the individuals you interact with in daily life.

In that regard, the Tibetan Buddhists are in complete agreement with the Stoics, but their criteria for evaluating what is good for the cosmopolis is much more clearly defined because in order to work for the cosmopolis, you must first overcome the ignorance of self-cherishing. Whenever you see self-cherishing entering into your thinking, you know the result will be non-virtue along with ignorant rationalizations for your acts.

The crucible of eliminating self-cherishing provides the clarity lacking in the general idea of working for the greater good of the cosmopolis.