The Stoic Response to the Idle Argument is the view that all events are co-destined, that is, that certain conditions must be met for the predestined outcome to occur. It is the idea that everything is meant to be determined within a given context. In order to recover from the disease it is necessary for the agent to call the doctor for a consultation; once this condition has been met, the fate of the recovery will follow. On the contrary, if the agent refrains from going to the doctor, it is equally fate that he will not recover, since he has not satisfied the conditions required to overcome the illness (203; Frede). The external cause (impression) in this case would be the disease; we consent to the impression by choosing whether or not to decide to go to the doctor to treat the disease. This choice depends on our character, which would be the internal cause. If we go we are destined to heal, otherwise we are equally destined not to heal and consequently we will die sooner. In both cases, a certain set of conditions is necessary for one of the two outcomes to occur. Responsibility for the Stoics is the very nature of the agent's mind. Their mind is responsible for what it consents to: when the external causes are the same but the results differ, it is the result of the different minds among the agents. Responsible action is established by the judgment between the two minds and the results of their assent (270, Bobzein). The agent who chooses to go to the doctor is considered responsible because he chose (due to his character) to go to the doctor and cure his illness. Alternatively, the other, by comparison, is deemed irresponsible for not having met the conditions for sustaining life. Moral responsibility works in the same… middle of paper… accepting oneself to lead a stress-free life: What is the point of being distressed about something beyond one's control? The modern concept of self-improvement involves changing one's character to be a "better" person. The issue of inconsistency is the result of objectors' misapplication of modern understanding of terms. This is not an internal inconsistency within Stoicism itself, but an inconsistent use of definitions. The Stoics speak of one set of definitions and the accusations speak of another. To demonstrate the inconsistency of their work requires that philosophy be questioned on its own terms. Therefore, charges of inconsistency against Stoic determinism do not hold water; are misguided objections that do not coordinate with the Stoics' established understanding of self-improvement and responsibility.