Arguments Employed in Favour of Unjust Action in Euripides, Thucydides, and Plato

Abstract

Abstract This article examines arguments used in the fifth century in favour of unjust action. Three main lines of argument are distinguished: (i) arguments based on ordinary human behaviour, employed by Glaucon in Plato’s Republic and by the Athenians in Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue, (ii) arguments based on self-interest, found also in Plato and Thucydides, and (iii) arguments based on setting against justice another value, normally courage (ἀνδρεία) or wisdom (σοφία). These arguments are absent in Hesiod and Aeschylus, but present later in Euripides, Thucydides and Plato. Categorising them allows us to understand more precisely a central intellectual phenomenon of the fifth century, and to identify how the argumentation, and therefore the discourse of power, employed in these sources varies according to genre. In particular, Euripides, in his portrayal of individuals, deals with these issues differently, and employs different arguments, from Thucydides, who is concerned with the conduct of poleis.