Crito and Platonic Ethics

13 April 2023

Crito and Platonic Ethics

Socrates: Ought we in no way to do wrong intentionally, or should we do wrong in some ways but not in others?  Or, as we often agreed in former times, is it never right or honourable to do wrong?  Or have all those former conclusions of ours been overturned in these few days, and have we old men, seriously conversing with each other, failed all along to see that we were no better than children?  Or is not what we used to say most certainly true, whether the world agree or not?  And whether we must endure still more grievous sufferings than these, or lighter ones, is not wrongdoing inevitably an evil and a disgrace to the wrongdoer?  Do we believe this or not?

Crito: We do.

Socrates:  Then we ought not to do wrong at all. 

Crito:  Why, no.

Socrates:  And we ought not even to requite wrong with wrong, as the world thinks, since we must not do wrong at all.

Crito:  Apparently not.

Socrates:  Well, Crito, ought one to do evil or not?

Crito:  Certainly not, Socrates.

Socrates:  Well, then, is it right to requite evil with evil, as the world says it is, or not right?

Crito:  Not right, certainly.

Socrates:  For doing evil to people is the same thing as wronging them.

Crito:  That is true.

Socrates:  Then we ought neither to requite wrong with wrong nor to do evil to anyone, no matter what he may have done to us.

(Plato,  Crito, translated by Harold North Fowler,  Plato I: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1914, pages 171-173, 49A-C, ISBN: 0674990404)

 

1.  This is a teaching found in a number of places in the Dialogues of Plato.  In Crito Socrates uses this teaching to distinguish the way of the world from the way of philosophy.  The way of the world is to retaliate in kind; meaning that if someone wrongs you or does something evil to you, then you retaliate against that person by doing harm and/or evil to that person.  The way of philosophy is to refrain from retaliating in kind; that is to say that those committed to the way of philosophy will refrain from doing wrong to those who have wronged them, and will refrain from doing evil to those who have done evil to them.

2.  I see this kind of analysis as embedded in the Platonic view of rebirth and karma.  At the end of Phaedo Socrates reveals to his students the nature of the afterlife and how people are judged and treated based on the deeds they have done.  It is a vivid description and some of the most vivid scenes are what happens to those who have wronged others, or engaged in evil acts; they suffer for an extended time in an afterlife that includes being trapped in a river from which they cannot emerge no matter how hard they try, until those whom they have harmed assist them.  In other words Socrates has the view that those who do wrong and evil suffer as a consequence of having committed those acts.

3.  This is similar to the way Dharmic traditions often talk about rebirth and the afterlife state between births.  I don’t know if there is an afterlife description that has the specifics of the way Socrates describes it in Phaedo, but the broad features are similar.

4.  Refraining from acts of wrong or evil, even in a situation where you are retaliating against those who have committed wrong or evil against you, is a type of purification.  It is linked to such basic practices as vegetarianism in the sense that vegetarianism, and refraining from participation in animal sacrifices, means to refrain from wronging animals, or doing evil to them.  It is the same principle applied in different contexts.  (See On Abstinence from Killing Animals by Porphyry)

5.  Platonic ethics is, it seems to me, based on principles that are then applied to various specific situations.  When I speak about Platonic ethics I mean the ethical teachings that are specifically Platonic and can be distinguished from the more broadly held ethical views of ancient Greek society as a whole.  For example, virtue ethics is a significant part of the ethical teachings found in Platonism, but virtue ethics are also part of the culture of that period.  In contrast, teachings like vegetarianism, sexual restraint, and abstaining from alcohol, are peculiar to Platonism and the philosophical way of life.  Both Socrates and Porphyry are explicit about this, at times, when referring to specific ethical teachings.  Here, in Crito, Socrates contrasts the way of ordinary people with the way ‘we’ (which I take to mean Socrates and his fellow philosophers) live in the world.  Likewise, Porphyry makes clear several times that it is philosophers in particular who should refrain from killing animals either for food or for the purposes of religious sacrifices. 

6.  I think the principle which is illustrated here is what in Dharmic traditions would be called ‘non-harming’, or ahimsa.  (I suspect it would be helpful to compare and contrast the Dharmic traditions’ teachings on ahimsa with the teachings on refraining from doing wrong or committing evil, even in retaliation for the same.)  Like the Dharmic traditions, non-harming, or ahimsa, is embedded in the teachings of karma and rebirth in the Platonic tradition.  And, further, this practice of non-harming, or non-wrongdoing, is seen as a way of transcending a world in which doing harm and doing evil, especially in a context of retaliation, is not only permitted, but considered highly admirable.

7.  This teaching is a profound one.  As I continue on my journey on the path of Platonism, I continue to find applications I had not previously considered.  As my understanding of this teaching grows I find myself, step by step, advancing on the path that leads to a return to the One.