| Subject: These essays make fun arguments...here's another! |
Author:
xander
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:17:51 11/03/03 Mon
This is an outline of "The Melian Dialogues" by Thucydides and an essay about it:
The Melian Dialogue
By Alex Taylor
Outline
Paragraph 1: Thucydides introduces the situation; Melos is a small island whose people, colonists of the Lacedaemonians, wish to be neutral. The Athenian forces have come and camped on the island and have sent envoys to the Melians to discuss whether or not the Melians will willingly become a tributary state. The Athenians meet with Melian magistrates.
Athenians 1: You Melians wouldn’t let us see your people directly because you’re scared that they would hear the sense in our argument.
Melians 1: Yeah, well, with your army here it doesn’t matter either way. If you win this argument we lose our freedom, and if you lose this argument it means war.
A2: This isn’t about the future, it’s about your city’s safety now ( Dodging words meaning, basically, let’s get down to business).
M2: It’s natural for us to talk about everything, but OK
A3: We have defeated Persia, we’re very strong. Lacedaemon has submitted to us, yet you, her colony, has not. Justice exists only between equal powers. “The strong do what they can, and the weak submit”.
M3: Even if justice is to be ignored, and self-interest is to be the topic of this conversation, our argument remains. Justice is in your self-interest here, because your justice will be rewarded with just treatment when Athens falls.
A4: We are nice guys to our defeated enemies, but that’s irrelevant. We are seeking a situation that is beneficial to everyone, by seeking your submission as a tribute-giving ally of Athens.
M4: We understand how you being our masters would benefit you, but not how it would benefit us.
A5: If you submit, we won’t destroy your city, but we shall reluctantly do so if you foolishly insist on war.
M5: Wouldn’t peace be best?
A6: No, because your neutrality displays weakness on our part. We would prefer you to be destroyed than to be neutral.
M6: Is that really what your subjects think? Don’t they know that allowing neutral nations to exist is not a show of weakness?
A7: Our subjects think that all nations are equal (lipservice to humanist ideals that AHEM superpowers frequently commence in warlike situations), but they think that “some survive because they are strong and we are afraid to attack them”. By your submission we gain land and security in our strength.
M7: But neutrality has further benefits. If you conquer us, you make all other neutral states enemies, and strengthen your opponents.
A8: No, because the main states that would pose a threat are comfortable in their safety. Island states and tribute states pose the real threat to us.
M8: If you work so hard to maintain your empire and your tribute states work so hard to rebel, then wouldn’t we be cowards to not fight our hardest for independence?
A9: No. This kind of fighting wouldn’t maintain honor against an equal competitor but rather be futile fighting against an overbearing power.
M9: “If we submit at once, our position is desperate; if we fight, there is still a hope that we shall stand secure”.
A10: Hope is dangerous. Big men can gamble with it, but little people are foolish to bet all they have on hope. Don’t be fools. Submit.
M10: We aren’t that small. We are on the side of right and so may expect divine intervention, and Lacedaemon will help us.
A11: The gods might favor us. It has always been the natural rule that the strong rule the weak. The Lacedaemonians may be virtuous, but look they look out for themselves, so they won’t help you.
M11: Exactly. They look out for themselves and will therefore not lose face by betraying their own colonist, us.
A12: No. “Safety and self-interest go together, while the path of justice and honor is dangerous”.
M12: But we are the kin of the Lacedaemonians, and our geographic position makes us easy to defend.
A13: The Lacedaemonians are cowards. They would never risk it, and they answer to our real power.
M13: They may send others, and then you must wage war against many.
A14: “Your strength lies in deferred hopes”, “[We] make you a fair offer”. Your choice remains…die at the hands of our military, or submit as a tributary state, and stop grasping for straw hopes.
Paragraph 2: The Athenians left the Melians to come to a decision. The Melians decide that they will not submit to the Athenians, and will leave their destiny to fate.
Paragraph 3: The Athenians basically tell the Melians that their choice was very foolish and that it will be their end.
Paragraph 4: The envoys return to the army, which leaves a small force to besiege the island and leaves for Athens.
Paragraph 5: Similar actions to the siege of Melos on the part of Athens inspire hostility from the Corinthians and Lacedaemonians. The Melians attacked an Athenian garrison.
Paragraph 6: The Athenians sacked Melos, killing all the men and selling the women and children into slavery. Too bad.
The problem with the situation of the Melian Dialogue is that both sides are thinking on an entirely different line of reasoning. I believe that the Melians, despite their attempts at making the neutrality seem practical, were really opposed to both war and loss of freedom as a city-state because they believed that these ideas were latently bad. The Melians were pacifists and nationalists and believed that each nation has a right to sovereignty, and that war is inherently a bad thing. From this perspective, the Melians are right in their argument. The Athenians, however, are arguing from what is the most practical and beneficial situation in a world with violence and rule of the strong. From this viewpoint, the Athenians have won the argument. They are arguing on different planes of thought, with disastrous effects.
I generally wish to follow the Melian example, but it is easy to see from history that the pacifist perspective collapses very quickly when a stronger force is introduced that thinks on Athenian terms. Unfortunately, most strong people got that way by following the Athenian thought pattern. Pacifism fails to work only because the strong are warlike. Of course one should strive for a day in which everyone is a pacifist, but until then it is a fatal flaw to be a pacifist in a desirable spot. The story of Melos perfectly illustrates this tragic truth of humanity.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 