The lazy argument, also known as the idle argument, is an ancient argument used to challenge fatalism by exposing what its proponents took to be an absurd practical consequence of the doctrine. Presented as a dilemma, it reasons that if everything that happens is already fated to happen regardless of what anyone does, there is no point in taking any action at all, since the fated outcome will occur whether a person acts or not; and if the outcome is not fated, then fatalism is simply false. Stoic philosophers, who held that the universe unfolds according to a fixed fate while also insisting that human effort and deliberation remain meaningful, took the lazy argument seriously as a challenge and worked to show why fatalism does not actually license inaction, arguing that a person's own choice to act or not is itself woven into the fated chain of causes leading to the outcome.
Facts
Classification
Position KindSourced to the subject's own account Connections
Open Questions
Source Fatalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Sources
1. Lazy Argument (Wikipedia)
WikipediaLazy argument (Wikipedia), introductionQuote, Lazy argument (Wikipedia), introduction
The lazy argument or idle argument... is an attempt to undermine the philosophical doctrine of fatalism by demonstrating that, if everything that happens is determined by fate, it is futile to take any kind of action.
2. Fatalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fatalism, section 7 The Idle ArgumentQuote, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fatalism, section 7 The Idle Argument
If so, the reply given by Chrysippus (c280-c206 B.C.E.) to this argument seems exactly right (Bobzien 1998, 5.2).
Open Questions (1 open question)
When Did the Lazy Argument Originate?
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Fatalism entry traces a precursor thought to Aristotle's De Interpretatione (Aristotle died 322 B.C.E.) but dates the named Idle Argument itself only by when the Stoic Chrysippus (c280-c206 B.C.E.) replied to it, a reply date rather than a founding date; no source found names who first posed the complete argument or in what year, so this atlas records no origin-year fact rather than assign a false precise date.
What would resolve this A specialist source identifying who first posed the Idle Argument in its complete constructive-dilemma form, distinct from Aristotle's earlier, less formal remark and from Chrysippus's later reply to it.
History of philosophy (dating attribution)Fatalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Dissenting Readings (1 dissenting reading)
Description
Chrysippus's reply to the argument: its conclusion does not follow, because an outcome fated to happen may be fated to happen precisely as a result of the very action (seeing a doctor) the argument calls futile; fatedness can include the causal pathway, not only the end state. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Fatalism entry calls this reply, dated to Chrysippus (c280-c206 BCE), "exactly right."
A dissenting reading, from ChrysippusFatalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Frequently Asked Questions
Why doesn't the lazy argument actually prove that action is futile?
The Stoic Chrysippus replied that an outcome can be fated to happen precisely through a given action, so consulting a doctor can itself be part of what was fated, not a futile extra step.
The lazy (or idle) argument reasons that if your recovery is fated, you will recover whether or not you consult a doctor, and if your recovery is not fated, you will not recover whether or not you consult a doctor, so consulting a doctor is pointless either way. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy records Chrysippus's reply as "exactly right": the conclusion does not follow, because it may have been fated that the patient will recover as a result of seeing the doctor. Fatedness, on this reply, can include the causal chain itself, so an act others call futile can be exactly the fated means to the fated end.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
Choose a year to see this entry's facts and connections as the atlas records them at that moment: what it held then, what it held instead, and what it had not yet adopted. Choose Present for the current record.