Melian Dialogue is known as one of the influential dialogues in the field of literature. It can be considered as the prominent indication of the facets of history and the evolution of the political philosophy. This particular dialogue is written by Thucydides who is also known as the first Realist of the world. The interesting fact about the Thucydides is that he only wrote one literary work related to the feature of war (Lebow, “Thucydides the Constructivist”). He explains the different aspects of the war which happened between the two influential forces of Athens and Sparta. He successfully apprehends the idea of this particular war which is considered as the terrifying war by him. This specific dialogue is the proper and effective explanation of the war which is known as the Peloponnesian War. It is notable to mention that main facet of the dialogue is to highlight the feature of power in a detailed manner. The main theme of the dialogue comes up with the consideration of many crucial elements. Here the focus is to distinguish the two main features of the Melian Dialogue which can be identified as the justice and self-interest.
Both the features of justice and self-interest can be categorized as the main themes of the Melian Dialogue presented by the Thucydides. It is crucial to understand that both the aspects of justice and self-interest are differently explained with the consideration of the particular Peloponnesian War. The dialogue provides the necessary indication about the aggressive struggle of the two influential Greeks groups, Athens and Sparta to attain the feature of power and self-interest. History witness the brutal approach of the people to gain their self-interest. There was the indication of peace in case of Nicias, but two groups remain indulge in the severe form of war and intensity expands just due to their self-interest.
The particular and prominent philosophies of the Athenian’s and the Melian’s can be effectively identified through their particular approach towards justice. According to the Athenians, their self-interest is closely related to their particular definition of injustice. Their particular behavior with the Melian people was not the approach of injustice or the paradigm of forcing others. They consider all the aspects justify concerning to the ultimate salvation of the city (Monten). They come up with the approach to surrender people to their supremacy and form of power without any objection by the other concerned groups. On the other hand, the definition of justice is entirely different in case of the Melians. They particularly connect the concept of justice with the facet of fairness. They effectively oppose the idea that actions can only be considered as the feature of justice if come up with the proper and true reason. They explain the particular prospect related to the element of justice that there should be proper consideration of the fairness and justice in the particular paradigm of the danger of war. The main difference in the form of philosophical approach between Athenian’s and the Melian’s identifies with the proper understanding of their different approaches related to the aspect of aggression. The Athenian’s were all ready to use the form of power to suppress other with their consideration of self-interest and the particular approach of justice which was entirely different from the Melian’s definition of justice.
Self-interest is another facet which is the prominent feature of the Melian’s Dialogue presented by Thucydides. The particular feature of self-interest is defined by the author with the particular approach of “Realistic”. It explained the argument of the Athens which believes that it is their ultimate right to force themselves due to the necessary features of honor and interest. Athenians follow the direction to overcome all the elements which appear with the consideration and desire of the kingdom. They connect the paradigm of self-interest with the approach of justice. They believe it ethical and realistic to adopt the facet of power which is not unjust as it determines their self-interest. They adopt the necessary approach of the particular and different form of belief. They formulated their approach with the particular argument that the feature of self-interest have the capacity to push towards powers and it is absolutely justified. They present the particular argument that the self-interest behavior cannot be criticized when it comes to the attainment of the power and authority.
The particular consideration of the justice and self-interest in case of Athenians only come up with their consideration of power. They want to dominate Melians and consider it as their fundamental right because of their strong position. They adopt the facet of power to define both the terms of justice and self-interest. They believe that as they are strong so they can do everything they want and it is completely justified to fulfill the paradigm of their self-interest (Lebow, “Power, Persuasion, and Justice”).
To conclude the discussion about this particular dialogue, it is crucial to mention that it immensely highlight the issue of the problem of justice as it is defined and explain by differently from the groups of Athenians and the Melians. The Melians request to the Athenians to show some flexibility and humanity when it comes to the dispute between them. The problem of justice immensely occurs because Athenians have their different interpretation of justice as they believe it morally correct to sustain their feature of power and self-interest. They forcefully reject the offer of the alliance as the ruling was their ultimate interest. This particular dialogue provides the different interpretations of both the terms of justice and self-interest on the basis of the difference of philosophies.
Work Cited
Lebow, Richard Ned. “Power, Persuasion and Justice.” Millennium, vol. 33, no. 3, 2005, pp. 551–81.
—. “Thucydides the Constructivist.” Richard Ned Lebow: A Pioneer in International Relations Theory, History, Political Philosophy and Psychology, Springer, 2017, pp. 87–113.
Monten, Jonathan. “Thucydides and Modern Realism.” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 1, 2006, pp. 3–26.
