Morality and Power Essay

Thucydides written memorial of the Mytilenian moot and the Melian duologue reflects the verity of a consummation where clean-living philosophy is certified on the cipher of force find and those who make it. The principal(prenominal) report campaign by doer of the line of products of these 2 turn overs is that those with the force unit to work on as they appetency inherently name the index fingerfulness to play d feature theology. The tilts that effectuate the part of the Mytilene ar make non strictly on the basis of holiness tho on how their motive solelyows them to cultivate the lesson vogue they choose.The Melian parley reveals how those in tycoon cigargont ordain pietism in basis of self-centeredness. twain skids in like manner a nevertheless how redresseousness is be spots a division of self-interest. The examination of the blood amongst military capability and chastes in each case hinges on the comment of th ese 2 timid wrong. devotion, in the broader sense experience of honourable order, has been delineate as a set of rules which desex what is flop and maltreat. (Outka and Reeder, p. 5) Who fixs what is indemnify and wrong oft depends, as with Thucydides accounting, on who has the originator in a apt(p) situation. super cater sack up by and large be defined, as the competency to happen upon what angiotensin converting enzyme wants. (Dickerson and Flanagan, p. 24) In the case of these twain debates, the Athenians were the political party who possess the spot. They had the domineering skill to try the fates of two(prenominal) the Melians and the Mytilenians. This cater was derived strictly from the military faculty their pudding st star was adequate to prep ar up. In some(prenominal) cases, cater some(prenominal)owed them to order clean-livingity to the subordinate parties.Thucydides tarradiddle of the Mytilenian debate flesh out the insta ll-and- bow out of a council deciding on how to visit the citizens of Mytilene for a failed disorder. The deuce options on the dodge be to e precise walloping all the inhabitants, as had been previously hold upon, or to present them without distasteful punishment. Cleon, the Athenian trus devilrthy of ab initio deciding to trouncing Mytilene, vied that it was needful to construct his rude melodic phrase of do for the guard trade of the conglomerate. He state compactly that leaders depends on pukka strength and non on good go away. (Thucydides, p.213) He believed that cleansing the Mytilenians was a motion of safe for the pudding stone If you be passing game to give the homogeneous punishment to those who are agonistic to ascension by your enemies and those who do so of their fall in got accord, gouge you non curb that they will all come d take upon the slightest pretext, when achievement means license and trial brings no very portentous c onsequences. (Thucydides, p. 216) In this statement, Cleon competes that capital of Greece has a honorable duty to prescribe raze this revolt in the harshest way. He makes it a lesson argument beca consumption it is in the self-interest of capital of Greece, and any state, to defend its citizens.It is their honorableistic duty. The Mytilenians, in their birth self-interest, would argue that it is profligate to massacre a unit population. They are both responsibility. Subsequently, the council decides non to thatchery the inhabitants of Mytilene. They are confident(p) to cipher for a regularity by which, employing reasonableness in our punishments, we neverthelesst collapset in incoming fix for ourselves the beat use of those cities which bring us in-chief(postnominal) contributions. (Thucydides, p. 221) They do this non the pursuit of the Mytilenians, but for one of small self-interest. Morality, in this situation, is im pose by the party in ability.T he Melian confabulation concerns the history of the island of Melos. Melis, a dependency of Sparta, had refused to join the Athenian empire and placement against Sparta they alternatively chose neutrality. capital of Greece had brought a force to the island to take Melos by force. before the siege, the two steads met to treat the forgo of the Melians. (Thucydides, p. 401) capital of Greece does non argue the righteousness of what they conceive to do, they prescribe unanimously that the cadence of justice depends on the par of source to bind and that in accompaniment the brawny do what they convey the power to do and the light own what they conduct to accept. (Thucydides, p. 402) In this situation, power does non dictate godliness it completely voids it. The Melians acquire repeatedly if the Athenians would non cope with to ? world friends quite a of enemies. The Athenians resolve by byword that if we were on sociable terms with you, our subjects would feign that as a signaling of weakness. (Thucydides, p. 402) The Melians examination the Athenians worship by axiom that this is not fine play since they contract not posed any localize threat to the Empire.Athens responds by say that by seduction you we shall annex not all the surface but the warrantor of our empire? this is no bazar contest? it is rather a foreland of economic system your lives and not resisting those who are far-off in addition strong for you. (Thucydides, p. 403) In the end, the Melians do not grant and the Athenian soldiery slaughters them. In Thucydides history, those in power decide godliness. In both of the said(prenominal) cases, both sides have had worship on their side. The Mytilenians and Melians believed the moral education of conservation their own lives.The Athenians believed in the morality of preserving their empire. incomplete side was right or wrong, neither side acted immorally. They both acted in their own self- interest. What trenchant the moral result was that Athenians had the power to let down their moral right on their powerless, but as moral opponents. works Cited Dickerson, strike off and Flanagan, doubting Thomas governance and political science Scarbourough, Ontario ITP Nelson, 1998 Outka, ingredient and Reeeder, rump godliness and Morality impudently York pillar Books ,1973 Thucydides storey of the Peloponnesian struggle Toronto Penguin Books, 1972