Abstract

The basis of moral responsibility is the central issue of Book IX of Laws, where Plato develops his theory of punishment, conciliating the Socratic thesis that no one is voluntarily bad (οὐδeὶς ἑκὼν κακός), with the practical necessity for a gradation of penalties, the latter being derived from the traditional distinction between voluntary and involuntary offences. Distinguishing two independent aspects of crimes – injury (βλαβη) and injustice (αδικια) – Plato argues that the former requires only restitution, whereas injustice calls for punishment, conceived as a measure to improve the soul, affected by disordered emotions or ignorance, causes of injustice.

Highlights

  • ASPECTS OF THE OFFENCEThe distinction conceived by the Athenian between injury and injustice seems to have not elucidated the double aspect of offences and the difference between them

  • In the Book IX, once more he states that “all bad men are in all respects involuntarily bad” (861d: οἱ κακοὶ πάντες εἰς πάντα εἰσὶν ἄκοντες κακοί), revealing it was a central point in his conceptions about action, which no 23, May-Aug. 2018 Silvia Regina da Silva Barros da Cunha, ‘Plato’s theory of punishment in book ix of Laws, p. 45-75

  • The solution devised by the Athenian to overcome the puzzle that challenged him – that is, how to conciliate the thesis οὐδεὶς ἑκὼν κακός with a criminal law that settles on a gradation of penalties, on the basis of the traditional distinction of voluntary and involuntary crimes – rests on the demonstration that the terms ἑκὼν and ἄκων can be used with different meanings

Read more

Summary

ASPECTS OF THE OFFENCE

The distinction conceived by the Athenian between injury and injustice seems to have not elucidated the double aspect of offences and the difference between them. In the lines under review, the Athenian’s intention is to make it clear that what determines the justice or injustice of an act is not the loss or gain that may come from it, but the character or disposition of the agent To those who understand that an injury may be voluntary or involuntary (Interpretation 1 above), it appears that somehow the only thing Plato did was to shift the difficulty, without effectively solving the problem. It is as if, by means of a simple word play, that which had traditionally been seen as “involuntary injustice” would come to be considered “involuntary injury”. Coupled with weakness double ignorance leads to childish or senile faults; joined with strength and vigor, it can cause graver, more brutal faults

Double associated to vigor
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.