Can Justice Win A War?: The Use Of Platonic Dialogues To Dissuade The Athenian Army From Attack .

 You are the ruler of a magnificent kingdom. You work hard to cultivate a prosperous, peaceful nation for your devoted followers. You strive to remain neutral in wars and refuse to aid conquering empires control smaller cities. Until one day, when all your political goals and advances are dashed. Athens is at your door. Two soldiers in plumed helmets, carrying massive circular shields and finely crafted spears, flank a representative from the violent empire. They are here to take your city. They are unprovoked and have endured no hardships from your nation. Yet, they insist you bend to knee to their rule, submit tithes to their government, and fight against your neutral brother nations upon their command. Your head swims as you ponder the outcome of refusal; War sweeping through your streets, women ravaged in their homes, death knocking on every citizen’s door. You cannot defend against their force. Your only choice now is to argue. The fate of each citizen rests in your ability to convince Athens it would be against it’s best interest to conquer or attack you. What points will you turn to, to build an argument in this most important of all debates? Can notions of justice and courage defend against these savage, wartime realists? 

Plato would say they could have. In response to his historical backdrop and new conceptions of ethics, Plato taught that an unreflective life is more terrible even than death. He also applied his wisdom to define his view of courage. These two aspects of Plato’s argument for justice could have been of great use to the Melians when arguing with Athens for their liberty. I will look through a platonic lens at these ideas to develop a defense that may have helped the Melians when Athens came knocking.

            Plato began writing his dialogues against the backdrop of the Peloponnesian war. As a citizen of Athens, Plato watched his government weaken and eventually break as Sparta delivered a bitter defeat. At the time, Athens was held in most opinions, to be the most powerful empire. However, the shameful loss to Sparta caused Plato to question his nation. He began to wonder what kind of nation Athens was and where it was going. He continued on this line of thought and eventually began to discuss what the best form of political and military control could be in Athens. 

Popular at the time of the Peloponnesian war, was the concept of realism. This theory held that it is the nature of a powerful state to fight, defeat, and conquer weaker states. Spearheading the realist movement was Thucydides. Thucydides is now called the father of scientific historiography for his written account of the Peloponnesian war. Thucydides’ account does not create godly parables, sugar coat the brutality, or insert subjective opinions and commentary.  However, from this objective history, modern readers can see the author’s realist point of view. Under the umbrella of political realism, Thucydides learns and develops many ideas from the war. Firstly, He learns that political parties will always interact in an anarchical situation. This leads him to the thought that war between nations in inevitable. In step with his realist predecessors, Hobbes and Machiavelli, Thucydides believes a war should be fought without the interference of conscience. Wars are meant to be won at the minimum cost and duration. He learns wars are not moral, but prudential.  As does Hobbes, Thucydides believes war is outside the bounds of justice. He holds that ethics and justice exist solely within a city-state.  Political realists claim that ethics can only exist between individuals within a social contract, after the government creates an order in which to host it.  In realist opinion, because a social contract between warring nations does not exist, neither does the concept of wartime ethics.

In response to these ‘might makes right’ view points, Plato becomes the first voice of what will later become known as just war tradition. Plato believes that justice and ethics should govern all wars.  Contrary to the beliefs of realism theorists, Plato claims that not only does justice exist beyond the confines of the city-state, but that there is a relationship between the domestic and international relations of any nation. In other words, how a state interacts internally, with dictate how they interact with other states. The main difference between just war theory and realism is that Plato’s ethic can transfer between the domestic sphere, to an international stage, where Thucydides’ cannot.

Realism theorists and practitioners are motivated to win wars by the belief that death is the worst-case scenario for any man. To a realist, the ultimate fear is losing a war and therefore physical life. This is a drastic contrast to the new belief Plato holds. Plato states, “…the life which is unexamined is not worth living.”[1]. In other words, his fear of an unreflective life is paramount to death.  Plato questions, if your account at the end of your life has no personal value, was your life worth living? Plato would answer no. Plato holds that the only way in which to claim your life as your own is to reflect upon it, (before it is over) in order to form your own opinions. These personal opinions thus govern the individual choices, which come together to make up one’s life. This leads to Plato’s thought that if you fail to examine your existence, you cannot possibly be living your own, righteous life.  Plato solidifies this view when he declares, “I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live.”[2]

This last statement from Plato would not have been very useful to the Melians’ goal of life and liberty, if used directly towards Athens, as the Athenians would have likely obliged them. However, Plato’s greater idea may have been of use. The concepts of reflection and choice are closely related to wartime ethics because the premises never fade- even for the powerful. No matter how powerful you are, you are never safe from the failure to reflect, and therefore, failure to claim your life as your own. The Melians could have appealed to the individual soldier in the Athenian army by showing them that their lives would be lost, far before a blade took their last breath, if they refused to reflect and instead followed blindly behind the unrighteous, Athenian attacks.

The Melians could have used Plato’s position to argue that the unjust killing of their peaceful nation would be more detrimental to the Athenians than death itself would be to the Melians. Consider this statement from Plato to his accusers, as an argument from Melos to Athens:The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them. And now I depart hence condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death, and they, too, go their ways condemned by the truth, to suffer the penalty of villainy and wrong; and I must abide by my award- Let them abide by theirs. [3]

The point here, which may have been valuable to Melos, Is the concept that the penalty awarded to the unrighteous, would be far more terrible than the penalty (death) awarded to the Melians, by the Athenians, if they refused to yield. Plato alludes to some form of third-party retribution lying in wait of the unrighteous. As is clear from Plato’s Phaedo, the philosopher believes in the continuing existence of the soul after physical death. Plato claims, “He who has lived as a true philosopher has reason to be of good cheer when he is about to die, and that after death he may hope to receive the greatest good in the other world.” [4] What is unclear is if he anticipates his ideas of retributive justice to strike the unjust in this world or the next.  I would argue that because Plato anticipates otherworldly rewards for the just, punishment for the unrighteous would take effect after death also. For Melos, it would be most wise to convince the Athenian leaders that they will face judgment for their brutality, by the Gods, after their mortal lives have ended. The Melians would benefit from reinforcing the idea that there is a fate far worse than death. Threatening Athens with human justice would be inconsequential, as the war-loving nation would likely puff out it’s chest, and prepare to fight (enthusiastically no doubt) any nation attempting to enforce punishment upon it.

            If this otherworldly theory of just-rewards had failed to deter Athens from it’s slaughter, the Melians could have then turned to Plato’s concepts of courage in a final attempt to dissuade Athens.  Early in the debate between Athens and Melos, it becomes clear that Athens intends to attack in order to appear strong to the other subjects of it’s empire. The Athenian envoy states, “…your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness, and your enmity of our power.”[5] The concern is that a single act of mercy will undermine the power they hold over all other conquered nations beneath them.  This means, the Athenian’s intention to conquer Melos is motivated almost entirely by fear; fear that they will be seen as weak and cowardly.  If well advised, the Melians may have endeavored to use Plato’s concepts of courage to show the Athenians that attacking them would, in reality, prove them to be both weak and devoid of courage.

            Plato states in Laches, “Prudent steadfastness…would be courage.”[6]  While Athens is certainly steadfast in it’s brutality, Melos must prove that attacking their city is not prudent. They do so (quite well) when pointing out,

How can you avoid making enemies of all existing neutrals who shall look at our case and conclude from it that one day or another you will attack them? And what is this but to make greater the enemies you have already, and to force others to become so who would otherwise have never thought of it?[7]

This is an excellent argument for lack of prudence, however the Melians failed to apply it to the greater concept of courage. To do this, they must show Athens that by attacking Melos, they are not only inviting enemies, but also indicating their military weakness to all surrounding nations. Plato concludes that steadfastness, devoid of practical wisdom, will lead one to folly. Because folly is inevitably followed by failure in war, it can be stated that a void of practical wisdom is a telling marker of a weakening military power.  If Melos could have expressed this to Athens, and convinced them that this fact would be apparent to their subjects, Athens may have reconsidered their conquest.  

            Melos may have continued, that because courage can never be born out of fear, there is no home for bravery in this attack. Additionally, there is no courage in a lion that attacks a colony of mice, as there is no question that he will win the fight. Similarly, Athens will be viewed as cowardly for attacking (unprovoked) a neutral nation that cannot hope to defend itself against the mighty empire.

            Although the success of these arguments are theoretically plausible, I personally doubt they would have held. I do not believe that a nation so deeply invested in realist war practices could have been swayed by the arguments of a war theory yet to be conceptualized, let alone apparent to any nation. The concepts of just war theory would have been too foreign for the realists to understand. The two parties would have never seen the other’s point of view in a time period such as this because their fundamental fears (physical death vs. lack of reflection) contrast so drastically. Because Athens was so strongly rooted in realism, there was no chance of swaying them with abstract concepts of justice. If the Melians were to glean any assistance at all from platonic arguments, they would have had to present them as prudential to the Athenians.

            It would certainly make an interesting essay to contemplate the outcome of this same debate, if Plato himself had been present. If this silver-tongued advocate for justice had spoken on behalf of Melos, and wielded the arguments of his own theory, could he have saved the nation? More interesting yet, consider the effect of Plato’s presence in our current governmental system. What would Plato have to say about America’s decisions to attack much weaker nations? Would he think the use of drones has a place in just war theory? Or would he condemn the U.S. as realists for thinking only of the prudential benefits of drones? As America grows more steadfast, is the practical wisdom of our leaders deteriorating?  Perhaps Plato has the answer.