The courts of Athens originally followed brutal Draconian law, punishing every offense with death. When that constitution collapsed, a statesman named Solon stepped in to write a new, much more humane constitution. As well as having punishments that fit the crime better, it was an ethical system, reforming institutions like prostitution and slavery. Plato was not born until 150 years after these laws were enacted, but he was deeply influenced by them. His ideas on justice take a moral standpoint, calling for not only the perpetrator of a crime but the victim and jury to consider the ethical impact of their actions and stand by their convictions no matter the situation. Solon's early laws set up the system into which Plato was born, where the law considered what was right or wrong, humane or unnecessarily brutal, as it carried out justice. This philosophy of active moral reasoning created a justice system that saw issues in many shades of gray, not just black and white. The ability to recognize many viewpoints created a more compassionate, empathetic society in Athens and helped foster developments in other areas - science was able to flourish in Ancient Greece because society realized that they had very little knowledge of the universe, and accepted that their perceptions were not necessarily the truth. The Solonian justice system was tiered, with punishments depending on intent as well as action. This nurtured the crucial ability to see both cause and effect, another important piece of scientific thinking. Solon's constitution created an environment rich with the seeds for independent, questioning thought, and was a large piece in the scientific and philosophic advancement of Athens.
Bust of Solon
Greek Philosophy
Soc. Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought and in another way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? Are all our former admissions which were made within a few days to be thrown away? And have we, at our age, been earnestly discoursing with one another all our life long only to discover that we are no better than children? Or are we to rest assured, in spite of the opinion of the many, and in spite of consequences whether better or worse, of the truth of what was then said, that injustice is always an evil and dishonor to him who acts unjustly? Shall we affirm that?
Cr. Yes.
Soc. Then we must do no wrong?
Cr. Certainly not.
Soc. Nor when injured injure in return, as the many imagine; for we must injure no one at all?
Cr. Clearly not.
Soc. Again, Crito, may we do evil?
Cr. Surely not, Socrates.
Soc. And what of doing evil in return for evil, which is the morality of the many-is that just or not?
Cr. Not just.
Soc. For doing evil to another is the same as injuring him?
Cr. Very true.
Soc. Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him. But I would have you consider, Crito, whether you really mean what you are saying. For this opinion has never been held, and never will be held, by any considerable number of persons; and those who are agreed and those who are not agreed upon this point have no common ground, and can only despise one another, when they see how widely they differ. Tell me, then, whether you agree with and assent to my first principle, that neither injury nor retaliation nor warding off evil by evil is ever right. And shall that be the premise of our agreement? Or do you decline and dissent from this? For this has been of old and is still my opinion; but, if you are of another opinion, let me hear what you have to say. If, however, you remain of the same mind as formerly, I will proceed to the next step.
Plato uses the dialogue between Crito and Socrates to look at the idea of justice and whether the "eye for an eye" idea of revenge is wrong. He uses logical arguments to show that in his opinion, retaliating is just as morally wrong as an original evil act.
The courts of Athens originally followed brutal Draconian law, punishing every offense with death. When that constitution collapsed, a statesman named Solon stepped in to write a new, much more humane constitution. As well as having punishments that fit the crime better, it was an ethical system, reforming institutions like prostitution and slavery. Plato was not born until 150 years after these laws were enacted, but he was deeply influenced by them. His ideas on justice take a moral standpoint, calling for not only the perpetrator of a crime but the victim and jury to consider the ethical impact of their actions and stand by their convictions no matter the situation. Solon's early laws set up the system into which Plato was born, where the law considered what was right or wrong, humane or unnecessarily brutal, as it carried out justice. This philosophy of active moral reasoning created a justice system that saw issues in many shades of gray, not just black and white. The ability to recognize many viewpoints created a more compassionate, empathetic society in Athens and helped foster developments in other areas - science was able to flourish in Ancient Greece because society realized that they had very little knowledge of the universe, and accepted that their perceptions were not necessarily the truth. The Solonian justice system was tiered, with punishments depending on intent as well as action. This nurtured the crucial ability to see both cause and effect, another important piece of scientific thinking. Solon's constitution created an environment rich with the seeds for independent, questioning thought, and was a large piece in the scientific and philosophic advancement of Athens.
Greek Philosophy
Soc. Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought and in another way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? Are all our former admissions which were made within a few days to be thrown away? And have we, at our age, been earnestly discoursing with one another all our life long only to discover that we are no better than children? Or are we to rest assured, in spite of the opinion of the many, and in spite of consequences whether better or worse, of the truth of what was then said, that injustice is always an evil and dishonor to him who acts unjustly? Shall we affirm that?
Cr. Yes.
Soc. Then we must do no wrong?
Cr. Certainly not.
Soc. Nor when injured injure in return, as the many imagine; for we must injure no one at all?
Cr. Clearly not.
Soc. Again, Crito, may we do evil?
Cr. Surely not, Socrates.
Soc. And what of doing evil in return for evil, which is the morality of the many-is that just or not?
Cr. Not just.
Soc. For doing evil to another is the same as injuring him?
Cr. Very true.
Soc. Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him. But I would have you consider, Crito, whether you really mean what you are saying. For this opinion has never been held, and never will be held, by any considerable number of persons; and those who are agreed and those who are not agreed upon this point have no common ground, and can only despise one another, when they see how widely they differ. Tell me, then, whether you agree with and assent to my first principle, that neither injury nor retaliation nor warding off evil by evil is ever right. And shall that be the premise of our agreement? Or do you decline and dissent from this? For this has been of old and is still my opinion; but, if you are of another opinion, let me hear what you have to say. If, however, you remain of the same mind as formerly, I will proceed to the next step.
Plato uses the dialogue between Crito and Socrates to look at the idea of justice and whether the "eye for an eye" idea of revenge is wrong. He uses logical arguments to show that in his opinion, retaliating is just as morally wrong as an original evil act.
Works Cited:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html