On Justice Power and Human Nature

In ancient Greek life, cyclicality was understood as a powerful force, manifested in the seasons, and honored through annual sacred festivals held for the city’s gods. In this sense, cyclicality doesn’t necessarily hold a positive or negative value. Sacred festivals, like hero cults, were meant to harness those forces for the public benefit, but they could have negative manifestations as well. Nature was simply a recurring phenomenon, whether human nature or that of the sea, sky, and earth. While previous chroniclers (tragedians, epic poets, the historian Herodotus) looked to fate and the gods to explain positive and negative outcomes, Thucydides restricts his gaze to change and human choices to understand positive and negative outcomes.

When their conditions deteriorate, humans believe that they have no choices, that circumstances demand certain responses, that their actions are fated, but the fault lies in their own limitations. This is the view Thucydides advances through his analysis of events on Corcyra. The conflict between the oligarchs and democrats became an excuse for humans to abuse each other in every possible way. Thucydides notes how accusations of “subverting democracy” became excuses for extracting revenge for “private hatreds” (123). The usual virtues were overturned: Prudence was called cowardice. Recklessness was called manly. Rage was called courage. Instead of debating to reach the best decision for the public good, interactions were like a competition for prizes, with the goal being not piety and justice but winning, at any cost. Greed, selfishness, and power combined to result in destructive outcomes for all involved.

Thucydides stresses that events on Corcyra weren’t unique but were merely one instance of a larger phenomenon. Similarly, the conflict between oligarchic Sparta and democratic Athens was the umbrella under which the same pattern recycled among their allies. Whatever form of government they espoused, humans were subject to the same patterns of behavior. Both Brasidas with the Acanthians and Athens with the Melians enforced their will through appeals to holding greater power. Brasidas cloaked his appeal to look like good intentions: He must liberate Acanthus from Athens—by force—to ensure that other states feel empowered to liberate themselves. However, Acanthus capitulated because they feared for their crops, not out of concern for their neighboring cities. Their choice was between rebelling or being starved, and they choose personal interest. Melos was faced with a similar choice to give up its liberty or be destroyed. Thucydides’s rendering of Melos and Athens’s dialogue—reminiscent of a Platonic dialogue—strips away any pretense of lofty goals. Athens baldly stated the options before Melos, and Melos chose not to capitulate. They chose destruction on their own terms. Acanthus and Melos provide opposing examples of the choices weaker parties must make.