PLSC 100 Midterm
What are virtues of intellect? How does Aristotle further describe the human soul in Book 6?
According to Aristotle there are two parts of the soul: a rational part and an irrational part. However, the intellectual virtues solely include the rational part of the soul, which is how one is able to identify with the truth. The rational soul consists of two categories: the scientific and the calculative/deliberative. The scientific category studies the invariable truths of science and math and the calculative/deliberative category encompasses the practical circumstances of human life. When an individual utilizes practical intellect they are able to effectively deliberate, and this leads them to make the right choice (NE, pg. 92). Aristotle also explains the three things in the soul that control action, truth-sensation, reason and desire. He begins by stating that sensation does not originate in action because "the lower animals have sensation but no share in action" (NE, pg. 92). He then proceeds to state that in order for a choice to be good, the reasoning must be true and the desire must be right. This choice must not exist without reason and intellect or without a moral virtue. In order to arrive at the truth, both intellectual parts must be in place (NE, pgs. 92-93). Aristotle breaks down the five intellectual virtues in which one's soul is able to arrive at the truth. These include science, intuition, philosophy, art and wisdom (NE, pg. 93). First, scientific knowledge guides an individual to eternal truths through rationalizing from known facts in a logical manner. Second, intuition gives an individual the first principles. Third, philosophy is able to answer the big questions that may seem impractical but are compelling. Fourth, art gives one the ability of creation that would be impossible without being labeled as an artist. Fifth, wisdom enables an individual to choose the appropriate means for the ultimate end at which life directs them. Wisdom is a skill that one is able to develop through the practice of being able to effectively deliberate. One must be knowledgeable of general principles in order to reach conclusions through proper reasoning. Although they differ significantly, Aristotle believes that out of the five intellectual virtues, philosophy and wisdom are the most significant as they are great contributors to an individual's prosperity (NE, pgs. 95-98).
What is Aristotle's definition of a citizen? Who is and who is not a citizen for Aristotle? Why?
Aristotle gives two definitions of a citizen. The first is a person who can partake in deliberations, decisions, and offices. The qualifications for participation in those activities may differ between different types of regimes. The second definition that Aristotle offers is a person qualifies to be a citizen if their parents were citizens of the particular state. There are also a few groups of people that Aristotle does not consider as citizens. These groups include honorary citizens, resident aliens, foreigners, children, and later adds laborers and slaves.
What are the qualities that make a philosopher and why do they make him a suitable ruler? What are the drawbacks to having a philosopher in charge of the city? Relate this to the images from Books 6 and 7 (the Stargazer and the Cave).
By the beginning of Book VI of the Republic, Socrates, Glaucon, and Adiemantus have addressed the requirements a man must fulfill in his role as a ruler. When a man rules, he must safeguard the laws of the land, safeguard the city's way of life and its philosophy, and establish just laws. The first few sections of Book VI describe the qualities of a philosopher in relation to these requirements. The philosopher has "flowed toward learning and all that's like it," and, "would be concerned with the pleasure of the soul itself with respect to itself and would forsake those pleasures that come through the body" (485d). In addition to letting go of bodily pleasures for the pleasures of the soul, the philosopher has a complete education, a good memory, and courage in the face of death and harm. However, this brings the central question for the rest of the text: do these qualities make a philosopher fit to rule as a philosopher-king? "The question you are asking," Socrates says, "needs an answer given through an image" (487e); the first image is the allegory of the Stargazer. The Stargazer possesses seemingly useless knowledge, but when alone on the sea at night, he is able to navigate by the stars to safety. Socrates relates this to philosophers in their own world; even though most citizens may see philosophy and those who practice it as useless, it would have practical results if used to rule the city. Book VII contains the next image and the most famous passage from the Republic: the Allegory of the Cave. When one of the prisoners from the cave escapes and sees the outside world, it would take some time to process all of it. However, when he returns to the cave with his new-found knowledge and wisdom that the cave is not all there is, he would be "the source of laughter," and the other prisoners in the cave might even kill him (517a). This image shows that philosophers may be qualified to rule because of their advanced understanding of what is beyond themselves, but their subjects in the city would more than likely not accept what the philosopher has to say. A philosopher-king cannot practically rule because the people would not accept him, or the philosopher would not be willing to accept such a position of power.
What is the Ring of Gyges and how does it fit with the challenge the brothers give to Socrates?
Gluacon tells the story of the Ring of Gyges in order to exemplify that individuals act just in order to gain rewards as well as avoid the negative consequences that would arise if they were to act otherwise. He presents the story of Gyges, a young shepherd in the service of the King of Lydia. An earthquake occurred close to where Gyges was tending sheep, which opened a crevice into the ground. Gyges descended into the crevice where he found a bronze horse with doors. As he opened the doors, Gyges saw a human skeletal form possessing a golden ring. Gyges took the ring and ascended through the opening. Gyges came to the realization, while he was at a gathering of the shepherds of the king, that when he twisted the ring on his finger he disappeared. Those around him began speaking of him as if he was not there. He repeated this action, and he was able to disappear each time. Gyges acquired a new ability to become invisible; therefore, he arranged to become a messenger sent to court. Once in court, Gyges used his magic ring to gain the graces of the queen and then proceeded to commit adultery. With the power to go undetected, he plotted the king's death with the queen so that he could take over the kingdom (Republic 359d-360b). Gyges's actions prove that if one can gain money and power by acting in an unjust manner, while not getting caught, he/she will do so. Individuals act just because they are aware that they will be punished if they act unjust. It is not an individual's interest to act in a just manner as "men do not take it to be a good for them in private, since wherever each supposes he can do injustice, he does it '' (Republic 360c-d). The brothers challenge Socrates ideal that individuals act just for their own sake through presenting the story of the Ring of Gyges. The brothers go on to propose the idea that individuals act just for the positive results and rewards that they are granted with.
What is the Noble Lie? Describe the myth itself and then what purpose it is supposed to serve. Does it work?
In Book 3 of Plato's The Republic, Socrates discusses the education of the citizens in the city. One aspect of this education is what he calls The Noble Lie. In the first part of The Noble Lie, Socrates proposes to tell the people of the city that "they were formed and fed in the womb of the earth...they are bound to advise for her good, and to defend against her attacks, and her citizens they are to regard as children of the earth and their own brothers"(414D32-41). What Socrates explains is that he wants all people of the city including rulers, soldiers, and citizens to believe that they all come from mother earth and are all brothers in the city. Their job is to protect the city and bind it together. The second part of The Noble Lie is "Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yet God has framed you differently" (415A2-3). Socrates wants to affirm the idea of different classes within the city. He wants to instill in the people of the city that the intrinsic hierarchy of the city is God's will. Socrates explains that everyone is born with metals mixed into them, these metals determine your social status. People who are deemed to be of the ruling class are mixed with gold, the auxiliares mixed with silver, and the craftsmen mixed with iron and bronze (415B1-8). The idea of people being born into their class makes them more likely to follow God's will and not question higher classes. They will be more likely to do their jobs happily, and not aspire to want to become a higher class. The third part of The Noble Lie ensures that the classes stay within bloodlines and metals do not mix. Socrates says "there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as the purity of the race" (415B11-13). Classes should remain pure and therefore different "metals" should not breed. The purpose of the Noble Lie according to Socrates is to "make them (the citizens) care more for the city and for one another" (415D27-28). Socrates doesn't want there to be conflict between classes, and he believes if people think the classes are God's will, then this will solve the conflict. This Noble Lie fails because it leads to pure communism.
What are the 4 cardinal virtues of the city? How does Socrates "find" justice?
In conversation with Glaucon, Socrates lays out the four cardinal virtues of the city. Socrates first points out the most important thing; there is an established city. Socrates states, "'So then, son of Ariston,' I said, 'your city would now be founded. In the next place, get yourself an adequate light somewhere; and look yourself—and call in your brother and Polemarchus and the others—whether we can somehow see where the justice might be and where the injustice, in what they differ from one another, and which the man who's going to be happy must possess, whether it escapes the notice of all gods and humans or not'" (427d 1-6). Now that Socrates has declared that there is a founded city, only now can he determine the four cardinal virtues and reveal to Glaucon the proper way in which to find justice. According to Socrates, the four cardinal virtues of the city are wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. However, Socrates clearly states that in order to find the fourth cardinal virtue, justice, one must find the three other cardinal virtues first. He states, "'Therefore, just as with any other four things, if we were seeking any one of them in something or other and recognized it first, that would be enough for us; but if we recognized the other three first, this would also suffice for the recognition of the thing looked for. For plainly it couldn't be anything but what's left over'" (428a 1-5). The first virtue Socrates finds in the city is wisdom. Socrates states, "'Well, it's wisdom, in my opinion, which first comes plainly to light in it. And something about it looks strange'" (428b 1-2). When Socrates says "something about it looks strange" he continues to explain that wisdom doesn't only come from the guardians/rulers, but the carpenters, smiths, and farmers as well. He says, "It is, therefore, from the smallest group and part of itself and the knowledge in it, from the supervising is and ruling part, that a city founded according to nature would be wise as a whole'" (428e 5-7). However, in this quote he is adamant that, although the other classes have wisdom, there are only a few who are truly qualified who sit at the top of the city that possess the "most wisdom". The second virtue Socrates finds is courage. Socrates states, "'And, next, courage, both itself as well as where it's situated in the city—that courage thanks to which the city must be called courageous—isn't very hard to see'" (429a 7-9). Socrates believes that it is in the preservation of the beliefs and laws of the city that courage is found. He says, "This kind of power and preservation, through everything, of the right and lawful opinion about what is terrible and what not, I call courage; and so I set it down, unless you say something else'" (430b 2-4). Although Socrates finds courage in preserving the laws of the city, he does not mention preserving the lives of the city. The third virtue Socrates finds is moderation. And by finding moderation, he finds harmony between wisdom and courage, which leads him to find the fourth virtue, justice. Socrates states, "there are still two left that must be seen in the city, moderation and that for the sake of which we are making the whole search, justice'" (430d 1-3). Moderation allows wisdom and courage to act in harmony with one another. In the city, when moderation is practiced, listening to wisdom and acting in courage then justice is found.
What are the definitions of justice given by Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book 1 of the Republic? What are Socrates' counter arguments to each definition and his own definition of justice?
In the first book of Plato's The Republic, the reader is presented with four definitions of justice. One by Cephalus, who is an immigrant that has acquired wealth over his life and is starting to grow old. The second definition is given by Thrasymachus, who is a popular sophist of his time. The third is given by Polemarchus, who is the son of Cephlalus. Socrates poses the question of what justice is, and all four men have different definitions. Cephalus says, "when he departs to the world below, he is not in any apprehension about offerings due to the gods or debts which he owes to men" (331B2-3). What Cephalus describes in this quote is he says that justice is speaking the truth and paying your debts. Wealth has given Cephalus the ability to do both of these things. Socrates does not think that this definition is correct. Ultimately Socrates's issue with Cephalus's definition of justice is that there are circumstances that affect how and when debts are paid. It is not as black and white as Cephalus made it out to be. Cephalus's son Polemarchus is then given the task to clarify what Cephalus was trying to say when he gave his definition. Polemarchus says, "for he really meant to say that justice is the giving to each man what is proper to him and that he has termed a debt" (332C20-23). What he means by this statement is that people deserve what is appropriate for that situation, and friends will have your best interest in mind, and enemies will not. Socrates replies to this definition with "Many a man who is ignorant of human nature has friends who are bad friends, and in that case, he must do harm to them; and he has good enemies whom he ought to benefit" (334E40-44). What Socrates is saying is that humans are not the best at judging people's character. Humans will always have false friends and mistaken enemies; therefore, it is never just to harm someone. Thrasymachus then interjects his point of view of justice he proclaims "that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger" (338C16-17). He says that justice is what the strong say it is, and the weak will just do whatever they are told to do. In short, he thinks that law and rulers determine what is just and unjust. Socrates has yet another objection to this definition of justice. Socrates says, "But are rulers of the State absolutely infallible, or are they sometimes liable to err" (339C1-2). Thrasymachus admits that rulers can sometimes make mistakes because they are human. Socrates then offers his definition of justice he says "the just does not desire more than his like, but more than his unlike, whereas the unjust desires more than both his like and his unlike" (349D33-36). Socrates argues that just men don't desire more than what he needs and should focus on himself. The unjust man is greedy and desires things beyond what he needs and focuses on things besides himself. Socrates's idea of a just state is one where people are only concerned with themselves and not on others.
What are the problems with Italy? What different things should Italy learn and do based on Machiavelli's directions in the Prince? [see Ch 26]
In the last chapters of Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince, he outlines some of the issues that the country has faced in the past. The first problem he brings to light is the issue of the long standing tradition of hereditary ruling. Hereditary ruling is when people gain power by being born into it regardless of their capabilities to rule. Machiavelli has an issue with this tradition he writes "The actions of a new prince are more closely watched than those of a hereditary prince, and when they are recognized to be fitting and able, they win men over and compel their allegiance more than ancient lineage does." (Niccolo 82) Machiavelli recognizes that being born into power does not make you a good ruler, and he knows that citizens of a state recognize that as well. Another issue outlined by Machievelli is the laziness and incompetence of past princes. He believes the power of Italy was lost because past princes did not rely on themselves and did not anticipate future events. Machievelli writes "For one should never fall in the belief you can find someone to pick you up. Whether it does not happen or happens, it is not security for you, because that defense was base and did not depend on you. And those defenses alone are good, are certain, and are lasting, that depend on you yourself and on your virtue." (Niccolo 84) He thinks that past princes got too comfortable in times of peace and prosperity and lost sight of the main goal of keeping Italy powerful. Past princes relied on others which in Machievelli's eyes is a huge mistake. Machiavelli proposes a few solutions to some of Italy's problems when it comes to how the country should be ruled. The first prong of his advice is to use his theory and text as a guide to how to rule. He believes that Italy is ready to return to power and they just need the right person to do it. He writes "The task will not be difficult if you will keep before you the lives and deeds of those I have just named." (Niccolo 88) Future princes must learn from Machiavelli's teachings and prepare themselves to rule by his theories. The second prong of Machiavelli's advice is Italy needs to strengthen and rebuild their army and need new orders on how to fight. He writes "If your illustrations house wishes to emulate the great men who have redeemed their countries, you must above all provide yourself with troops of your own as the true foundation of every undertaking." (Niccolo 89) Machievelli believes that the true way to gain power on the world stage and at home is having a strong army of loyal soldiers. If the citizens believe in their rulers and in their army they are going to be loyal to their country and want it to prosper. Strong leadership will insight nationalism amongst the Italians, which will lead to a united and strong Italy.
Explain the term "cruelty well used." How does it play into Machiavelli's political philosophy? Give examples of cruelty well used and cruelty poorly used.
Machiavelli writes in Chapter VIII of his Prince about two historical examples of rulers using cruelty, one well-used and one poorly-used. Cruelty, when used to maintain power, security, and balance, is not inherently bad to use. However, this does not mean that cruelty is always good to use, either. To explain this philosophy, Machiavelli uses the examples of Agathocles the Sicillian and Liverotto de Fermo. Agathocles joined the army and Syracuse and rose through the ranks to become Praetor, which gave him leverage and opportunity to seize power. He called for the senate and people of Syracuse to gather, "and at a given signal the soldiers killed all the senators and the richest of the people" so he could consolidate power in himself (Machiavelli 38). The Carthaginians, from northern Africa, attempted to attack Syracuse in its perceived weakness, but "not only was he able to defend his city, but... with the others he attacked Africa," and Agathocles was able to convince them to surrender to his terms (Machiavelli 38). He was able to save Syracuse from invasion and keep the Carthaginians in Africa because he came to power, but the way he did it was still cruel. Machiavelli does not praise him too highly: "his barbarous cruelty and inhumanity with infinite wickednesses do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men" (39). However, he does understand why Agathocles did what he did, and advocates that the causes and hardships he endured made him noble. Cruelty poorly-used is not done all at one time, like Agatholces, but continues to be used and continues to grow, like Liverotto. Liverotto approached his ascent to power similarly to Agathocles, but he kept killing those who would oppose him and after a short while "had become formidable to his neighbors" (Machiavelli 41). Because he kept using cruelty to his advantage and was not decreasing it, "he was strangled, together with Vitellozzo, whom he had made his leader in valour and wickedness" (Machiavelli 41). If it is absolutely necessary, a ruler can wield cruelty all at one time to seize power, but that must be the end of it. If he keeps using unnecessary cruelty to keep his enemies subdued, "it is impossible... to maintain [himself]" (Machiavelli 42).
When discussing mixed regimes (Ch 3), Machiavelli gives two example regimes - one good and one bad. Identify the example regimes, whether they were good / bad, and the reasons why they were good / bad.
Mixed regimes are a mix of hereditary (blood lineage) states and altogether new states; they are "annexed to the hereditary state of the prince who has acquired them" (The Prince, 1). Machiavelli thinks that hereditary states are the safest and easiest to rule, but mixed principalities can also be very successful. Machiavelli gives the examples of Louis XII's France, a poor mixed principality, and the Romans, who maintained an exemplar mixed principality. Louis XII was a poor ruler because he misunderstood the nature of friends and enemies, and he "was not able to keep those friends who put [him] there because of [him] not being able to satisfy them in they way they expected" (The Prince, 4). One of his mistakes was sending barons with private armies to fight for him. Once Louis XII lost the support of the barons, he lost the support of their private armies. Louis XII also decided against living in his conquered territories. Because acquired territories often have different languages and customs and resent the ruler who conquered them, "one of the greatest and most real helps would be that he who has acquired them should go and reside there" (The Prince, 6). By failing to go live in his new territories, Louis XII had a more difficult time ruling over the people he conquered. The Romans' mixed principality is the most ideal. Instead of abandoning their conquered territories, they "maintained friendly relations with the minor powers...kept down the greater, and did not allow any strong foreign powers to gain authority" (The Prince, 9). By protecting the lesser powers without increasing their strength, the Romans gained the support of those they conquered. More importantly, the Romans never allowed themselves to relax or take comfort in the idea of hope. They did not put off their problems or procrastinate; "the Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once" (The Prince, 10). Hope is dangerous because of the chance that unanswered problems will become worse over time. By not relying on hope, the Romans solved their problems before they became a threat to the state.
What is the City in Speech experiment? Describe stages 1 and 2 of the experiment (the City of Sows and the City with a Fever). Associate them with the proposed classes of society and their purposes / luxuries / etc.
The City in Speech experiment is an attempt by Socrates to defend justice according to the parameters set by Glaucon—do human beings perform acts of goodness simply because they are good? Because a single man is too complex to examine, Socrates, who operates under the assumption that the justice in a man equals the justice in a city, observes an entire city to prove his argument. The City of Sows, or pigs, is the city's most basic form. It arises from human beings' inability to meet all their needs on their own, and "since many things are needed, many men gather in one settlement as partners and helpers" (369C2-3). It is a society where labor is divided according to each person's specialty; each person performs only one craft. By having only one occupation and providing for their different needs, all the people in the city support each other. The City with a Fever is an amendment based on Glaucon's input that the City of Sows lacks luxuries. However, the introduction of luxuries brings both internal and external conflict. Internal conflict arises because people are no longer trained in only one art; they now need to know how to sell their crafts. The fact that a person cannot put all his time and energy into the perfection of one craft increases internal conflict within individual people. The external conflict is the need to "do battle with invaders for all the [city's] wealth" (374A2-3). As the city becomes bigger and more luxurious, the threat that it will be plundered by outside invaders increases. Thieves also appear because of the creation of classes—some people have wealth, and some people do not. All of this conflict stresses the necessity for guardians to protect the city. The introduction of the guardians produces a problem for Socrates' argument. The guardians have the roles of soldiers and policemen, but they must have two qualities. They must be physically strong and able to think appropriately, which means that "they must be gentle to their own and cruel to enemies" (375C1). This conclusion is problematic because it is Polemarchus' definition of justice, which states that justice is giving each person what is appropriate to him. Socrates is unable to defend his position on justice with the City of Sows and the City with a Fever; his defense will require further amendments to the cities.
What is the master science? Why?
The goal of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is to find the science that achieves and learns the best "good." Aristotle believes that there are many means and many ends, therefore there are many forms of good. There are subordinate sciences and master sciences that help us reach the ends. He states, "...in all of these the ends of the master arts are to be preferred to all the subordinate ends; for it is for the sake of the former that the latter are pursued" (Aristotle 3). This means that although there are multiple means to reach the ends, there is only one master science that overrules the subordinate ones to achieve the best "good". According to Aristotle the master science that will help us achieve those ends is political science. Aristotle states, "And politics appears to be of this nature; for it is this that ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a state, and which each class of citizens should learn and up to what point they should learn the; and we see even the most highly esteemed of capacities to fall under this, eg., strategy, economics, rhetoric; now, since politics uses the rest of the sciences, and since, again, it legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from, the end of this science must include those of the others, so that this end must be the good for man" (Aristotle 4). Political science is the all-encompassing science that teaches the individual the art of ruling, education, war, management, money, rhetoric etc. Aristotle also believes that along with a master science, everyone has a common master end. Because there is a master end, Aristotle states that we need a master science to achieve this master end. Aristotle states, "For even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is worthwhile to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states. These, then, are the ends at which our inquiry aims, since it is political science, in one sense of that term" (Aristotle 4). Aristotle believes the master end is happiness. Political science is the all-encompassing science that will help us achieve the master end of happiness, therefore political science is the master science. By finding the good of political science, you find the good for the individual and the community. This is the good life that will bring happiness to everyone.
What issue does Socrates have with Achilles, Homeric / religious poetry, and certain types of music in Book 3? How does this relate to Socrates' idea that education is important? (Hint: think about the idea of imitation)
The popular soldier role mode, Achilles, is an example of the "Bad" Soldier, he is ruled by grief/anger (thumos) is arrogant and uneffective. The removal of these types of "lies" will result in moderations for the guardians, and therefore more effective in their jobs of protecting the city. Imitation is a threat to guardians. Music moves the soul to action, but want calmness in the guardians. Must have unexcitable music. Removing these things removes the fear of death from the guardians, leading them to be more motivated. There must be a moderation of pleasure for the guardians.
What are the 3 causes and 3 types of friendships? Which of these friendships is most important to the political community and why?
The three types of friendships according to Aristotle are those for pleasure, utility, and "The Good". Friendships for pleasure are for bodily gratification. Friendships for utility are relationships where you receive some sort of good out of it. The last type of friendship are "The Good" Friendships. This type of friendship is about non physical goods shared with one another. These goods include but are not limited to mental goods, knowledge, and shared common goals. The most important type of friendship is "The Good" Friendship. This type of friendship is the most important because it forms a political community. People will be connected by virtues and will be friends for the advantage of the whole. These types of friendships will be composed of people acting justly to one another.
What is Thucydides' view of human nature? Are we good, evil or simply pragmatic?
Thucydides believed that human beings are pragmatic—they primarily act out of what they perceive to be self-interest, even if the outcome is not in their interest. This idea can be seen when powerful states such as the Athenian empire operate on the principle of "might makes right." This principle means that "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept" (p.2). It is easier for powerful states to use their power however they wish because no one can oppose them. However, the idea of "might makes right" is not always in a state's self-interest. In the story of the Mytilenian Debate, which occurs in the sixth year of the war, the Athenians arrive at this conclusion. Before debating, the Athenians acted hastily when they decided to punish all the Mytilenians in addition to the rebels. The Athenian general Cleon supported this action because he believed it to be an example to both Athens' friends and enemies of Athenian power. However, Diodotus argued that it was not in the Athenians' self-interest to punish everyone; the death sentence could not be trusted to deter other cities from rebelling, and this kind of behavior was not the mark of good Athenian citizens. It would be in the Athenians' self-interest to allow the Mytilenians a chance to repent; after coming to this conclusion, the Athenians sent a trireme to Mytilene with these new orders. By the time of the Melian Dialogue, which occurs sixteen years into the war, the Athenians change from a mindset based on good citizenship to an empire-oriented "might makes right" mindset. The Athenians judge the acquisition of territory to be in their self-interest, and they resolve to subdue the island of Melos. When the Melians argue that the gods will save them, the Athenians counter that the gods act in the same way—it is a "general and necessary law of nature to rule whatever one can" (p.3). It is human nature to do what is in one's self-interest, and the Athenians judge that it is in their self-interest to conquer Melos.
What does Thucydides' rule of safe statecraft tell us about human interactions? How should we interact? What one major factor do we always have to be careful of (hint: the word starts with a P)?
Thucydides believes that humans carry out actions based on self-interest; therefore, it is not effective to rely on allies and God to provide support even in times of need. This claim makes it evident that individuals must rely only on themselves to guarantee that their best interest will be taken into account. In relation to the Melian/Athenian conflict, the Athenians make it clear that the Spartans will not offer assistance because "if one follows one's self-interest one wants to be safe, whereas the path of justice and honour involves one in danger. And, where danger is concerned, the Spartans are not, as a rule, very venturesome" ( Thucydides 3). The Athenians also argue that God favors them both equally as their "opinion of the gods and [their] knowledge of men lead [them] to conclude that it is a general and necessary law of nature to rule whatever one can" (Thucydides 3). Neither God nor the Spartans are willing to aid the Melians in this conflict; however, the Melians are too naive to come to this realization. Thucydides believes that individuals act out of self-interest; therefore, it is imperative that one keeps external interactions to a minimum, as the Melians failed to do. One must be cautious when dealing with those who hold more power than him/her. Power is a key factor in determining one's success, as "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept" (Thucydides 2). Those in power dictate the position of the weak, and because weak individuals have no say they are incapable of changing their status. The Melians are aware that the Athenians hold more power over them; however, the Melians do not accept the Athenian's terms as they believe their ally Sparta will have their back. In the end, the Melians did not have enough power to defeat the Athenians and as a result they "surrendered unconditionally to the Athenians" (Thucydides 5). The Melians failed to recognize who they were up against and they relied on the power of external forces to help them succeed, which led to their defeat.
