Do you think retribution was a justified action towards these “neutral states”?
-Robert
Thursday, October 2, 2014
War and the Follies of Justice
In class today, we tried to distinguish justice and honor - two words that are often mistaken to be euphemisms. While honor codes can differ amidst social groups, it seems as though justice is always concerned with the sense of equality. Oftentimes in Thucydides’ accounts, the warring nations decided to carry out justice to the defeated. However, there always appeared to be two common flaws among the judicial decisions: 1.) Other than justice, the victors applied their own version of honor, and 2.) They gave into expedience based on the war situation instead of fair trial. From the deliberation of the Plataians to the punishment of the Mytileneans, it always appeared that the Lacedaemonians/Athenians interpreted Justice through their own lens. For instance, Kleon argued that punishment by death for the Mytileneans, in addition to setting a “clear example…for anyone who revolts”, would be “expedient and just”(3.40). Clearly, Kleon has skewed the sense of equality in justice by involving Athenian interests in judgment. On the other faction, debating whether to slaughter Plataians “made enemies by necessity” (3.58), the Lacedaemonians chose vengeance after being convinced by bloodthirsty Thebans. While both sides claimed to be upholding “the law of Hellas”, this act can never be entirely true because the Hellenic World is nothing but fragmented at the time. What both sides have done was merely using justice as their form of retribution; slaughtering men and enslaving women and children.
What do you think was the correct way of carrying out justice in the scenario of war?
Do you think retribution was a justified action towards these “neutral states”?
-Robert
Do you think retribution was a justified action towards these “neutral states”?
-Robert
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Honestly, I think it really depends on what view of justice and honor you are taking. In today's view of honor, I don't think the retribution was justified. I think it was vengeful and that a country would be looked down upon for using much more force than was necessary to deal with the issue. It would pretty much be seen as bullying in today's eyes, but it seems that at that time that was justified because it was the only way for the victor to prove their honor.
ReplyDeleteI do agree how temporal context constitutions our definition of justice. In class, we went over the idea of Greek ethics and its major role in Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War. I think it is important to understand the difference between ancient ethics and modern morality when it comes to judging what is “just” or whether retribution was a justified action. One of the core elements in Greek ethics is the notion of virtue, which is characterised by bravery, strength, and honour. For the Lacedaemonians, punishing and overpowering the Plataians may be seen as a form of justice–a form of virtue and strength. Indeed, it is difficult to take a post-historic stance and determine what is “justified" when there is a distinction between Greek ethics and modern morality.
ReplyDelete