Arguments Employed in Favour of Unjust Action in Euripides, Thucydides, and Plato

Theodore Hill

doi:10.1163/1568525x-bja10039

Abstract

Abstract This article examines arguments used in the fifth century in favour of unjust action. Three main lines of argument are distinguished: (i) arguments based on ordinary human behaviour, employed by Glaucon in Plato’s Republic and by the Athenians in Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue, (ii) arguments based on self-interest, found also in Plato and Thucydides, and (iii) arguments based on setting against justice another value, normally courage (ἀνδρεία) or wisdom (σοφία). These arguments are absent in Hesiod and Aeschylus, but present later in Euripides, Thucydides and Plato. Categorising them allows us to understand more precisely a central intellectual phenomenon of the fifth century, and to identify how the argumentation, and therefore the discourse of power, employed in these sources varies according to genre. In particular, Euripides, in his portrayal of individuals, deals with these issues differently, and employs different arguments, from Thucydides, who is concerned with the conduct of poleis.

Highlights

A striking feature of the intellectual history of the fifth century bc is the use of arguments in favour of actions which might be regarded, by the victim or even by the perpetrator, as unjust
Three main lines of argument are distinguished: (i) arguments based on ordinary human behaviour, employed by Glaucon in Plato’s Republic and by the Athenians in Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue, (ii) arguments based on self-interest, found in Plato and Thucydides, and (iii) arguments based on setting against justice another value, normally courage or wisdom
Recent Thucydidean scholarship has paid much attention to the Athenians’ arguments in defence of their empire, in order to investigate Thucydides’ political thought, and in order to explore the nature of fifth-century Athenian imperialism

Summary

Introduction

A striking feature of the intellectual history of the fifth century bc is the use of arguments in favour of actions which might be regarded, by the victim or even by the perpetrator, as unjust. Hill the Arguments in Aristophanes’ Clouds, this argumentation, sometimes called ‘immoralist’, is generally associated with the Sophists’ widespread influence on fifth-century Athenian culture.. Hill the Arguments in Aristophanes’ Clouds, this argumentation, sometimes called ‘immoralist’, is generally associated with the Sophists’ widespread influence on fifth-century Athenian culture.2 This argumentation has received much attention from scholars working on Plato’s Gorgias and Republic, where it is employed in different forms by Callicles, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon.. Recent Thucydidean scholarship has paid much attention to the Athenians’ arguments in defence of their empire, in order to investigate Thucydides’ political thought, and in order to explore the nature of fifth-century Athenian imperialism.. It has long been recognised that the ‘immoralist’ argumentation employed in Plato is anticipated in Thucydides and Euripides, recent scholars have paid relatively little attention to it as a phenomenon of intellectual history. Since most scholars discussing this argumentation have been interested primarily in only one of these three authors, scholars have rarely attempted to place their three genres on an equal footing, or to discern the differences in how this argumentation is used in each

Objectives

Conclusion