The Melian Dialogue and Thrasymachus

Naguib

The Melian Dialogue and Thrasymachus

Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War (c.460-400 BC) tells the story of the eponymous war from the ancient period that divided the Greek Empire between Athens and its allies and the Lacedaemonians, Sparta and its allies (431-404 BC). In the Melian Dialogue, there were negotiations reported by Thucydides amongst the powerful Athenian and the weak Melian. The Athenians mounted a military expedition against the isle of Melos, a Spartan colony before the outbreak of the war. The Melians, unlike the other islanders, refused to join the Athenian empire because they believe in the rights to exercise political independence. Hence, they remained neutral without helping either side. The Melians were subjected to the reality of Thrasymachus’s theory of justice when the Athenians forced them to be with or against. Despite the Melian attempt to remain neutral, the Athenians, their superiors, removed the availability of such a choice. The Melian concept of justice is, therefore, superseded by the justice of the stronger.

Thrasymachus, a sophist in Plato’s Republic, makes three main claims about justice. Justice is the advantage of the stronger (Plato, 339a), the obedience to laws (Plato, 339b) and someone else’s good (Plato, 343b). Each ruling power sets down laws according to its own advantage and its self-interests. For instance, each kind of regime makes laws that are, in its eyes, just. In a democratic regime, the laws are in favor of the mass of poor people, in a tyrannical regime for the tyrant and in an oligarchy for the wealthy. According to Thrasymachus’s definition, justice justifies the rule of the powerful, Athenians over the weak, Melians. Therefore, justice is synonymous with the ruling power; those who make the laws that are for their advantage.
According to Thrasymachus, those who rule create law for the benefit of their subjects; however, the laws favor those in power. So, “in every city the same thing is just, the advantage of the established ruling body” (Plato, 338a). The subjects or the weak do not obey the laws because they are just but they fear suffering the consequences. However, this was not the case with the Melians since they refused to give up their neutrality. Also, they were not afraid of the consequences. In addition, Thrasymachus claims that the stronger or the tyrant, an example of an unjust person, is the happiest since he has the power to “punish lawbreakers, take away what belongs to the others, kidnap and enslave the people or other cities (Plato, 344a) and the just men are wretched, unlike the unjust men, since they have less, “suffer it and would not be willing to do injustice” (Plato, 344a). Therefore, Thrasymachus theory of justice is the reflection of the pursuit of one’s interest. This highlights that fact the the Melians who are just are unhappy since at the end the Athenians invaded their territory.
In the same respect of Thrasymachus’s idea of justice, the Athenians believe that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Hence, justice is simply the will of the powerful. The only law that should be imposed on the powerless is the one of the stronger. The Athenians invite the Melians “to obey [their] interest”. According to the Athenians, the concept of justice only arises when there are two empires that are equal and balanced in power. The question of justice is not crucial as much as the question of self-interest. Nevertheless, the Athenians provide an opportunity for the Melians to escape destruction by offering a negotiation. They offer them an ultimatum to the Melians: whether to destroy it or to surrender and pay tribute to them. The Melians cannot be independent; they are either with the Athenians or against them since the Athenians do not allow cities to take positions other than one of the two warring sides. For the Athenians equity is to “put those who have nothing to do with [them] in the same category with people that are most of them [their] own colonists, and some conquered rebels? ‘’ (Thucydides,11) The Athenians also try to persuade the Melians that it is better for both of them if Melos gives in. On one hand, the Melians would save themselves and on the other hand, the Athenians would prosper from them. However, this was not just for the Melians since they have to choose either to accept war or slavery. Is it just that in order for the stronger to maximize its power, to improve its image, and hence to ensure its survival, security and self-preservation security, to put under control the others regardless their interests and their desires just because they are weak and neutral?
Nevertheless, the Melians choose neither of the choices. Resistance was the only ‘’weapon of the weak” in order for them to remain neutral. They have to choose between a successful resistance and a complete destruction, all or nothing. The Melians hold on what they believe in: justice and independence. There “resolution is the same as it was at first”: they prefer resistance as well as they will not be “deprived of freedom […] and will try and save [themselves] ( Thucydides,13). The Melians believe that with their confidence and “trust that gods may grant (them) fortune as good as (the strong), since (they) are just men fighting against unjust…” ( Thucydides,14). The Melians disagree that the stronger imposes its justice and suggest being friend with the Athenians instead of enemies. But, for the Athenians, it is worse being friends than being enemies because it is “an argument to (their) subjects of (their) weakness”, fear and the Melian’s “enmity of (their) power.” (Thucydides,13) This shows that both the Athenians and the Melians argue in different directions. On one side, for the Melians, the question of justice and self-determination are more important than the one of expedient. On the other side, the Athenians attack the Melians with sufficient justifications to control them and emphasize on the importance of self-interest and survival by being the powerful and control their territory.
Furthermore, the Melians would argue that justice is not always the advantage of the stronger. For example, it is not in the Athenians advantage to force the submission of the Melians because they would create an enemy. It would be better for them to allow the Melians to maintain neutrality, so that the Athenians at least would not have created another enemy who are the other existing neutral cities that “shall look at case from it that one day or another you will attack them”. (Thucydides, 13) Hence, according to the Melians, the Athenians injunction is disadvantage to the Athenians in the long run.
In addition, the Melians want fairness and invoke what is right. They refer to the future possibility that one-day the stronger; the Athenians, would certainly need protection. This means that the stronger and the weak could trade places. This produces a contradiction based on both the Athenians’ and Thrasymachus’s idea that justice is the advantage of the stronger and that the mighty do what they please. Therefore, when the formerly stronger needs protection of a currently stronger, they will not find it (just as the case of the Melians who cannot find protection from the stronger and respect to their neutrality). This shows that the Athenians can sometimes be fallible in their understanding of justice. He can command something that later can be harmful and disadvantageous to himself. The Melians agree that “when the [stronger] command the ruled to do something, sometimes completely mistake what is best for themselves, while it is just for the ruled to do whatever the rulers command (Plato,339d) [....] doesn’t necessarily follow that it is just for the others to do the opposite of what you say? For the weaker are commanded to do what is doubtless disadvantages for the stronger?" ( Plato, 339e)
The Melian Dialogue here represents an important contradiction in Thrasymachus’s logic of justice. Likewise, it enters into the conversation issues of advantage and disadvantage that complicate an objective theory of justice. In the dialogue both, the Athenians and the Melians failed to persuade each other; therefore neither of them wins the argument. This reflects both strengths as well as weaknesses in the arguments of each side.