Plato on Non-Harming: 2

 15 October 2024

Plato on Non-Harming: 2

“Socrates:  Do we say that one must never in any way do wrong willingly, or must one do wrong in one way and not in another?  Is to do wrong never good or admirable, as we have agreed in the past, or have all these former agreements been washed out during the last few days?  Have we at our age failed to notice for some time that in our serious discussions we were no different from children?  Above all, is the truth such as we used to say it was, whether the majority agree or not, and whether we must still suffer worse things than we do now, or will be treated more gently, that nonetheless, wrongdoing or injustice is in every way harmful and shameful to the wrongdoer?  Do we say so or not?

“Crito:  We do.

“Socrates:  So one must never do wrong.

“Crito:  Certainly not.

“Socrates:  Nor must one, when wronged, inflict wrong in return, as the majority believe, since one must never do wrong.

“Crito:  That seems to be the case.

“Socrates:  Come now, should one do harm to anyone or not, Crito?

“Crito:  One must never do so.

“Socrates:  Well then, if one is done harm, is it right, as the majority say, to do harm in return, or is it not?

“Crito:  It is never right.

Socrates:  Doing harm to people is no different from wrongdoing.

“Crito:  That is true.

“Socrates:  One should never do wrong in return, nor do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you.”

(Plato, Crito, translated by G. M. A. Grube, Plato: Complete Works, edited by John M. Cooper, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 1997, pages 43 - 44, 49b-49d, ISBN: 9780872203495)

1.  “One should never do wrong in return, nor do any man harm . . . “  Usage like this indicates that ‘harm’ and ‘wrong,’ or ‘wrongdoing,’ are often treated interchangeably in the Dialogues.  In addition, the term ‘injustice’ is also often used as an equivalent for ‘harm’ and ‘wrong.’  It’s like ‘wounded’ and ‘maimed’ and ‘disfigured.’  Or it’s like ‘sophia’ and ‘phronesis’ which are two Greek words that both mean wisdom.

2.  This quote begins with Socrates referring to past discussions that Socrates and his students have had on this subject.  This indicates that the perspective of non-harming was one that was discussed frequently even though that is not reflected in the Dialogues that we have.  Was such discussion confined to a particular group?  I mean were these discussions only for select students and not for the general public?  I don’t mean that these teachings were esoteric but they might not have been the kind of teaching that would be offered to a newcomer or a casual observer.  I’m just speculating, it’s true, but I think it’s worth considering.

3.  The ethical standard that Socrates emphasizes is difficult to maintain or act on because it runs counter to broadly held standards in most societies.  Most societies, and most ethical systems, allow for retaliation; that is to say if someone harms you then that gives you the ‘right’ to harm that person.  

Socrates is arguing for the idea of non-retaliation when one has been harmed.  This runs against our instinctual response to such a situation.  We’ve all been there; when we are harmed, what immediately emerges is a harmful response and if we are unable to harm someone in response to their harming us at that moment, then we plot to enact retribution or vengeance another day.  The teaching of Socrates counters that and at the same time reveals to us how difficult such a commitment is to maintain.  It is difficult because it runs counter to our biological, or body-based, instincts.  It takes dedicated practice to be able to overcome the instinct to counter harm by doing harm.

4.  If we understand refraining from retaliation or retribution as an ethical ideal that Socrates is advocating, this helps us to understand why Socrates argues that it is necessary for the soul to separate itself from the body, to the best of its ability, while still alive.  Because retaliation, the returning of harm for harm received, is so instinctual, so body-based, it can only be overcome when our attention shifts from concern for the body to concern for the soul.  

5.  But what is the basis for this teaching of non-retaliation or non-retribution?  The dialogue does not say, but thinking about it, I suggest that this ethical teaching emerges from the idea of rebirth/reincarnation.  And in the background also is the idea of cyclic existence as a defining feature of the material world.

Rebirth is a consequence of the cyclical nature of the world soul which is then transmitted to, or emanated upon, the beings living in the material world.  In order to ascend to the noetic and the fully transcendental (the One and the Good) it is necessary to step out of cyclic existence, of genesis/samsara.  

Retaliation and retribution are instantiations of the cyclic nature of material existence; this explains why ancient hatreds are so intractable and seem to be never resolved.  This back and forth nature of harming and being harmed is endless because the cyclic nature of existence is endless; this endlessness being a distorted image of eternity (eternity transcends endlessness.)  

Non-retribution cuts through cyclic existence and frees the soul from its embeddedness in material processes and the endless cycle of genesis and suffering.  Looked at from this point of view, the soul is greatly benefitted by adopting non-harming as the foundation of its ethical interaction in the material world.  But it is not just a personal benefit; non-harming paves the way for all those who hope to free themselves from here and ascend to There.

6.  There are a lot of implications that emerge from, or are consequences of, the idea of non-retaliation.  For example, it would seem to lead to an anti-war position, a position that is not, as far as I can recall, referred to in the Dialogues with one possible exception: in the Phaedo Socrates states that war is the result of the body having endless desires, such as the desire for wealth.  War, then, would only cease when these desires are overcome which, in a Platonic context, means separation of the soul from the body.  That’s the basis, in my opinion, for non-harming and non-retaliation.

There are also a lot of questions regarding non-harming such as how to practice non-harming.  I mean beyond the general call for asceticism, what would non-harming practice look like?  

After noticing the teaching of non-harming in Platonism, and after pondering the teaching for some time, it becomes apparent that this teaching ripples out into many fields of practice.  It is, I think, a lifelong exploration.