Justice is the driving force for the Athenian empire and the people of Melos. It acts as the catalyst for the actions of both parties in the dialogue produced by Thucydides. However, the Athenians and the Melians have radically different views regarding the idea of justice and its intended role. The envoys sent from Athens have a plain view of justice. To them, the strong conquer, and the meek effectively roll over and accept their fate. These people view this as a simple fact of life. In response, the Melian council thinks of justice as a force that rewards the faithful and hopeful. Both parties feel that they encapsulate the notion of justice, and the direct result of these opposing ideas leads to a debate between the envoy and council. This debate shows how neither view of justice is particularly favored over the other. Rather, it is the difference in power that manages to give the edge to the Athenians.
The Athenians wish for the island of Melos to join their Delian League. Unfortunately, they do not give Melos much in the way of an option. Athens makes a show of their military might as explained, “the Athenians
…show more content…
Unfortunately, they are still not spared by Athens’ military might. Although they offer an admirable front, they eventually succumb to the powerful empire by a mix of sheer power as well as internalized corruption. Thucydides writes, “the siege was now pressed vigorously; and some treachery taking place inside, the Melians surrendered at discretion to the Athenians”(116). For following their views of justice, sticking to their virtue, and having hope, they are demolished as a country entirely. Their eventual fate depicts what comes out of following their idea of justice. Even though the Athenian view simply rests on the idea of power, the difference between Athens and Melos is that the Athenians have the undeniable force backing their
A twenty-first century reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey will highlight a seeming lack of justice: hundreds of men die because of an adulteress, the most honorable characters are killed, the cowards survive, and everyone eventually goes to hell. Due to the difference in the time period, culture, prominent religions and values, the modern idea of justice is much different than that of Greece around 750 B.C. The idea of justice in Virgil’s the Aeneid is easier for us to recognize. As in our own culture, “justice” in the epic is based on a system of punishment for wrongs and rewards for honorable acts. Time and time again, Virgil provides his readers with examples of justice in the lives of his characters. Interestingly, the meaning of justice in the Aeneid transforms when applied to Fate and the actions of the gods. Unlike our modern (American) idea of blind, immutable Justice, the meanings and effects of justice shift, depending on whether its subject is mortal or immortal.
At first glance, the picture of justice found in the Oresteia appears very different from that found in Heraclitus. And indeed, at the surface level there are a number of things which are distinctly un-Heraclitean. However, I believe that a close reading reveals more similarities than differences; and that there is a deep undercurrent of the Heraclitean world view running throughout the trilogy. In order to demonstrate this, I will first describe those ways in which the views of justice in Aeschylus' Oresteia and in Heraclitus appear dissimilar. Then I will examine how these dissimilarities are problematized by other information in the Oresteia; information which expresses views of justice very akin to Heraclitus. Of course, how similar or dissimilar they are will depend not only on one's reading of the Oresteia, but also on how one interprets Heraclitus. Therefore, when I identify a way in which justice in the Oresteia seems different from that in Heraclitus, I will also identify the interpretation of Heraclitus with which I am contrasting it. Defending my interpretation of Heraclitean justice as such is beyond the scope of this essay. However I will always refer to the particular fragments on which I am basing my interpretation, and I think that the views I will attribute to him are fairly non-controversial. It will be my contention that, after a thorough examination of both the apparent discrepancies and the similarities, the nature of justice portrayed in the Oresteia will appear more deeply Heraclitean than otherwise. I will not argue, however, that there are therefore no differences at all between Aeschylus and Heraclitus on the issue of justice. Clearly there are some real ones and I will point out any differences which I feel remain despite the many deep similarities.
In this paper, I will first extract Thucydides views from the Melian Dialogue and then analyze whether or not these views are well founded. Thucydides believed that the Athenians had the stronger argument. Proof of this lies in the way Thucydides picked the arguments for each side. For the moment, we will disregard the actual content of the arguments, and look at argumentation forms and the flow of the debate. The Melians argued using consequences of an Athenian take over.
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual. However, Plato examines the justice system from the perfect society and Aeschylus starts at the curse on the House of Atreus and the blood spilled within the family of Agamemnon.
On the return journey in a separate ship, Alcibiades escaped at Thurii and later went into exile in Sparta (218). The Athenians failed to anticipate Alcibiades' possible defection and take action to prevent it. A side consequence was that the assembly took the soul and tactical advantage out of the expedition by recalling Alcibiades. The expedition had a better chance of success if the command had gone to Alcib...
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.
The causes of the Peloponnesian War proved to be too great between the tension-filled stubborn Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta. As Thucydides says in Karl Walling’s article, “Never had so many human beings been exiled, or so much human blood been shed” (4). The three phases of the war, which again, are the Archidamian war, the Sicilian Expedition and the Decelean war, show the events that followed the causes of the war, while also showing the forthcoming detrimental effects that eventually consumed both Athens and eventually Sparta effectively reshaping Greece.
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
Bearing the values of courage, duty, and honor in mind, Pericles instills the premise within Athenians’ that they should strive to perpetrate the values their predecessors fought for, and endure pain and sacrifice to retain them in the face of war. They must, therefore, reflect a fortitudinous, determined, and devoted attitude as they defend
This essay will argue against Thucydides Melian Dialogue, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,” which is affirmed on the basis of Athens’ conference with the Melians for confiscation of the Spartan island of Melos, but will also provide a counter-argument using evidences from the negotiation. This proclamation is potentially falsifiable in the sense that, if one’s strength, as a status in a community, were to be measured by their morality, assertiveness and self-representation, those who are stronger may not be able to carry out the actions they please. The superior may not always occupy mentalities which are virtuous, which in turn relegates them. The weak may follow through with the consequences brought upon
Also, he realizes they cannot do this alone. Themistocles offers a unification policy on Athenian Agora: The Delian League. Persians have enemies on Balkans and Anatolia but why Themistocles did not add them his list? Themistocles started the negotiations between Greek city states and Athens after the declaration of the military unification against Persians and he saw the cultural similarities and common future goals. Of course he was not angel, he thought he can use this commonity to benefits for the Athenians. Also he predicted that naval battles can bring advantage to Greeks because Greeks are expert on Sea. He created Athenian Naval Law4 and united Greek Armada can change the war according to Themistocles but Spartans have doubts about this unification due to the fact that they did not trust Athenians. Leader of the Sparta, Leonidas I thought this unification will use by Athenians for their advantage after the war. Spartans did not involve the union in the first approach because thought Persians are not trouble for them. Thermopylae defeat changed everything for Spartans. They realize that Sparta cannot defeat Persians just themselves. The time Themistocles and his navy about defeat on the Salamis bay, Spartan navy comes to aid5. This event was a sign of the first unification of Greece. Themistocles achieved creating a military union, which controlled by
that it is because of the gods that things are as they seem to be. "Do you
... weaker state will remain neutral from a military strength. Melians’ loss reaffirms the absolute power of imperial conquests and nationalism in theories of realism. Since the Melians were allied with the Spartans and failed to cooperate, it is justifiable that the Athenians had the right to want to rule and invade the Melians as means to protect their own strengths.
Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.
(64) 'You must not be led away by the advice of such citizens as these, nor be angry with me; for the resolution in favour of war was your own as much as mine. What if the enemy has come and done what he was certain to do when you refused to yield? What too if the plague followed? That was an unexpected blow, but we might have foreseen all the rest. I am well aware that your hatred of me is aggravated by it. But how unjustly, unless to me you also ascribe the credit of any extraordinary success which may befall you!36 The visitations of heaven should be borne with resignation, the sufferings inflicted by an enemy with manliness. This has always been the spirit of Athens, and should not die out in you. Know that our city has the greatest name in all the world because she has never yielded to misfortunes, but has sacrificed more lives and endured severer hardships in war than any other; wherefore also she has the greatest power of any state up to this day; and the memory of her glory will always survive. Even if we should be compelled at last to abate somewhat of our greatness (for all things have their times of