GREEK AND HELLENISTIC PHILOSOPHY
"When there is crime in society, there is no justice" (Plato)

    Other than philosophy, the Greeks possessed a real talent for mythology, and there are numerous moral lessons contained in the many fables, myths, legends and stories about ancient greek gods, demigods, demons and monsters. Two writers stand out, in particular: Homer and Hesiod.  Homer's epics teach that the gods are like little children, capricious in their interventions, but the one sure thing that draws down the thunderbolt of Zeus is hubris, excessive pride or arrogance. The gods never failed to punish anyone with excessive pride, this mother of all sins. To be sure, the gods did not truly want pride's opposite -- humility -- as much as just pride, an undramatized estimation of one's self necessary for courage and self-confidence. The earliest ethical dilemma given to us by the Greeks is, therefore, about the dividing line between pride and arrogance.

    The writings of Hesiod tell another story, and present another unique concept: moderation. For Hesiod, the gods were not capricious, but had the moral integrity to abide by fate which would always reward the good and punish the wicked. Zeus, the creator, had thus fashioned justice into the cosmic order so that man could follow this path through moderation, by not letting pride, anger or anything else get out of hand. From this mystical notion of the cosmos, then, came philosophy, the idea that man could engage in free inquiry about the nature of things.

    At first, philosophy was materialistic, reducing reality to nothing but atoms and space, as in the atomism of Democritus and later a part of Epicurean thought. There were also stoics like Zeno and seers like Pythagoras who were likewise concerned with the nature and measurement of material things. But Western philosophy is said to have begun with Thales (Jones 1969), who used the symbol of the sphere, an object having no beginning or end and encompassing everything, as the most perfect and beautiful thing. The sphere came to represent the classical school's search for perfection, and in Stoic thought, took on the meaning of universal brotherhood.  Uniquely Greek was the idea that explanation had to be rational.  Even Hippocrates, the father of medicine, held that psychological and sociological forces were no less material than other things in the physical world (Alexander & Selesnick 1966).  The word "classical" (as opposed to "archaic") is used to describe Greek philosophy which developed at precisely that point when Pericles and others started rejecting the idea that angered gods were behind all of a community's troubles and defeats.

    Various statesmen attended to the development of democracy in the pre-Socratic era. Solon replaced rule by king with rule by archon, a kind of chief magistrate who served a one-year term. Solon's criminal justice reforms included: (1) making theft a public offense; (2) establishing popular courts and a system of appeal; (3) establishing trial by jury of peers; (4) allowing orators to serve as public defenders and prosecutors; and (5) outlining rules of decorum and evidence (Drapkin 1989). Anyone could hold public office, except those subject to ostracism, a device created by Cleisthenes to bar influential citizens from political power. Ostracism was not a dishonor as its purpose was to prevent professional politicians. Cleisthenes also increased the size of juries to around sixty, drawing from a juror pool of six thousand, the number of votes required for external exile, a common punishment. Draco, the lawgiver, published penal codes on pillars in public places so people could read the law. Anyone could challenge what they thought was an unjust law by acting as their own prosecutor, but if they failed to win their case, they were severely fined. Many Greeks took it as their duty to challenge laws and prosecute corrupt officials, penalizing the latter with atimia, the punishment of internal banishment. Draco's own punishments were harsh, quite often involving death because of his belief that blood spilled must be purified by spilling more blood. The phrase "draconian" punishment bears his name for senseless and severe thinking like this. On the whole, Greek justice sought the goal of deterrence. Protagoras, an influential philosopher of the time, argued that punishment should not be to right a wrong but to prevent future wrongs.

    The practice of criminal justice among the Greeks has been documented by Hunter (1994). The police were Scythian (Persian) slaves purchased by the government. These public slaves managed crowds, herded jurors, carried whips and swords, and wore conspicous clothing. They arrested on orders from an archon or designee, and assisted citizen-prosecutors in bringing suspects to court. Citizens also depended on a hue-and-cry system, whereby any passerby was obliged to assist with bringing a suspect to justice. Some suspects were chained in their homes pending trial, and others were detained in prisons, mixed with those awaiting execution. Prisons were staffed by special jailers trained in the art of torture, but torture was generally reserved for those of slave status. The stocks and pillory were also used, but usually only after conviction. The worst penalty was being thrown into the barathron, a pit of death containing sharp objects along the way down. Barathrons were unstaffed and eventually came to be replaced by the practice of drinking hemlock, but they are generally considered the world’s first prisons. An essential element of proof was mens rea, or criminal intent (Agretelis 1964), since the Greeks believed that responsibility for crime required the free choice of a mental act. In this way, the Greeks made crime a wholly negative departure, not to be confused with accidents, failures, and incompetence.

SOCRATES

    Often regarded as the first ethics philosopher, Socrates left no writings of his own. Most of what we know about him is based on the writings of Plato, and it is indeed difficult to tell where the ideas of Socrates leave off and those of Plato begin. He was not a leader nor politically inclined, but a critic of criminal justice. He particularly disliked the spectacle of popular courts, viewing them as swayed too much by public opinion. He regarded juries as the equivalent of going to an oracle for fortune-telling. Even modern scholars regard faith in juries as a remnant of transcendental ethics, a way of tapping into supernatural luck, fate or fortune (Rheinstein 1954). Most of all, Socrates challenged the assumption of evil intent in criminal law. He did not believe people would voluntarily choose evil.

    Socrates turned the Greek search for perfection inward. He created the conception of the soul, or psyche (Stumpf 1993). By it, he did not mean a spiritual substance, but the unique human capacity for obtaining practical knowledge about right and wrong. For example, people know that harming others is wrong, and they will usually act on the basis of this knowledge. To do otherwise would badly damage one's soul. So central to human nature is the capacity for knowledge in one's soul that Socrates proclaimed two maxims to live by: "know thyself" and "virtue is knowledge". Other than these, he advised handling every situation differently.

    To lead the good life, one must be involved in the care and feeding of one's soul, cultivating its capacity for knowledge about right and wrong to the utmost. There are several ways to do this, and the first that Socrates recommends is dialogue, or disciplined conversation. Ethics as dialogue has been proposed by Klockars (1982) as the best basis for understanding criminal justice ethics. The Socratic method, widely used in law schools, involves pressing someone for definitions, sometimes feigning ingnorance, and coaxing out the truth by progressively agreeing to eliminate incomplete or inaccurate notions. It is a form of dialectical reasoning drawing out the other person's fullest possible knowledge about something. Socrates recognized this method was time-consuming and proposed it only as a model for professional philosophers, but it nevertheless stands to reason that "enjoyment of talk" is a prerequisite for criminal justice work (Muir 1977).

    A second method involves education. Socrates has been regarded as the first criminal justice educator for his emphasis upon the value of higher education to criminal justice employees (Holland 1980). He believed that a virtuous soul can be cultivated by reading literature that deals with human nature and expounds on not just the mechanics but the principles of criminal justice. It was Plato who refined many of Socrates' ideas on this point, but Socrates seemed concerned with two things about criminal justice employees: (1) the recognition of unjust commands; and (2) the exercise of discretion. It must be remembered that Greek society allowed citizens to challenge unjust laws, and Socrates appeared to extend this to the right of criminal justice employees to disobey commands believed to be wrong. It is their duty to convince superiors that the command is unjust, but if unsuccessful, they should be prepared to lose their job, see justice go undone, face immediate execution, or whatever. This notion of principled insubordination is similar to what philosophers call lex justica, the public assurance and trust that enforcers are ethical persons too, that we can rely on them to resign before they would enforce an unjust law. Socrates believed the highest unwritten law is to accept the consequences when fighting for your beliefs, even if it means personal sacrifice.

    While all Greeks (even Plato and Aristotle) payed lip service to deterrence, they believed that if a suspect committed a minor infraction and was sincere in repentance, there was little need for punishment. This reflected a belief in the need for discretion and the ability to extract a suspect's own sense of right and wrong as more important than teaching them a lesson. Giving out breaks or second chances were not benefits Socrates extended to criminal justice employees.

    Higher expectations represent the third way criminal justice employees demonstrate virtue. Socrates refuted the notion that to combat evil, one must know evil. Evil must not be learned about from personal experiment, but from the observation of others wicked or foolish enough to choose crime. From such observation, one realizes that while wicked people exist, people only choose wicked acts because they are mistaken into thinking there is some good in what they do. Socrates believed that no one deliberately chooses wrongdoing; to do so must be involuntary, a reaction to pressures for success and happiness. True happiness requires knowledge of human nature and the ability to distinguish between behaviors leading to the appearance of happiness and the reality of happiness--making the soul as good as possible. The prohibition against tampering with your own soul was intended to be especially crucial for criminal justice employees. The idea of involuntary evil-doing flew straight in the face of Greek criminal justice, which assumed evil intent was behind every criminal act.

PLATO

    At age 40, Plato founded the Academy, a place of higher learning in math, theory and politics, but more importantly, the world's first university. There, he taught the elite of society and wrote his magnum opus, The Republic, perhaps the most famous book in western civilization. He perpetuated many of Socrates' ideas, but differed on several points. Whereas Socrates saw the human soul as a fairly harmonious place, Plato conceived the soul to be filled with conflict (Bernard 1983). Socrates was also more inner-worldly than Plato. As we shall see, Plato had a more developed metaphysics and plan for creating the just society.

    Beginning with metaphysics, what if there is a dual reality? Plato thought so, and took issue with Democritus, who argued that the material reality of objects is the only one we can have knowledge of. Plato argued this reality was constantly in flux and changing, always distorted by sense perception. There is really no such thing as knowledge, only opinion, of material things. True knowledge, not imagination or fancy, should be aimed at abstract things, like justice and beauty, that are not necessarily visible and can only be grasped using the intellect. Whereas the objects of perception are particular, the objects of intellect are universal (Lavine 1984). The objects of intellect, like justice, are called the Forms, and Plato says that because they are universal and eternal, they must exist as actual objects in a separate reality. They have more being. They are really real. This idea has come to be known as Platonic realism.
What is the nature of this separate reality? At times, Plato sounds quite transcendental when he says in The Laws that contemplation of the Forms make a person more ethical. But we must understand that this book contains his penology, advocating isolation, prayer and meditation as "medicine for the soul" in rehabilitating prisoners. We also know that theology is indebted to Plato because when Christians think of God, they are thinking of Plato's description of the ultimate Form, the Idea of the Good (Lavine 1984). Plato said knowledge of the Forms is like a vision, illuminating, extremely satisfying, and inexplicable (Jones 1969). Justice, beauty and goodness cannot be reduced to soundbites. He did define justice as having and doing what is one's own, but an appreciation of this definition rests on an understanding of his theory of personality.

    Moral development occurs through mental development. Mental development proceeds in four stages. At level one, the mind is awash with images. Plato used the example of artists to describe this stage. At level two, the mind is focused on opinions. These are people, like materialists, caught up in their sense perceptions. Their minds are occupied on comparing apples with oranges. At level three, a real breakthrough is reached. A dividing line has been crossed between the visible and intelligible world. The mind seeks understanding. These are people like mathematicians and scientists who discover laws and principles based on visible things and point to the existence of higher things like Forms. In fact, all levels of mental development serve the function of pointing to object analogues at other levels. At level four, using the method of dialectical reason, the mind becomes a lover of truth, and at long last, the entire range and beauty of values are appreciated. Few people make it to level four. Plato describes it as an erotic attachment to the ideal of truth. Knowledge of the Forms cannot easily be expressed in the charts, diagrams, or formula of the more visible world, but via the experience, one acquires a moral purpose and happiness in life. It is at once the sensation of "all is one" perfection and the practical ability to distinguish appearance from reality.

    Becoming virtuous is all the more difficult because personality is riddled with conflict. Plato's theory of the tripartite soul is very similar to Freud's concept of the id, ego and superego, except Plato uses the divisions of appetite, spirit and reason. Appetite is the bad, uncontrollable part of personality, driven by bodily urges. Spirit is the good, ambitious part that needs little more than a voice telling it where to go. Reason is the voice within, persuading spirit to help control appetite. Plato said that when these three parts do not function properly, there is internal conflict, behavior disorder, and mental breakdown. All injustice and wickedness in the world is due to personality aberrations brought on by personality conflict. Plato made a rudimentary attempt to classify different types of criminals by personality, regarding some as controlled by spirit and most controlled by appetite. And, although he was a strong believer in rehabilitation, he regarded some people as too far gone, reserving for them a life of torture in prison, or execution, along with other incurables and mental defects in society.

    Justice means having a society with well-integrated personalities. Such people act morally not because they are more reasonable or intelligent, but because each part of the personality performs its proper function. Their appetites are temperant, their spirits are courageous, and their reason exhibits wisdom. Temperance, courage and wisdom are trademarks of the Platonic ethic.

    Justice in the self, however, is dependent on justice in the state. Just as every generation or so, some evil, wicked, incurable monster appears among the criminals (according to Plato), every now and then society tends to degenerate and forget its moral values. Plato believed this happened because of a lack of censorship. A just society, acting as the model teacher of values, would take its responsibility seriously, censoring anything (presumably art, sports, entertainment, and products) which appeals to only one part of the personality. Plato especially warned against life becoming a cavalcade of sensations. And, as the opening quotation for this lecture implies, Plato believed in a crime-free society, a utopia ruled by philosopher-kings and controlled by guardians, who would be virtuous criminal justice officials.

    Plato had elaborate plans for recruitment and training of the guardians. Everyone in society would be given a qualifying examination at age twenty, including women. Those passing this exam would then be subject to censored music and literature, and expected to excell at math, science and gymnastics. At age thirty, a final exam is given, weeding out all but the most exceptional candidates. This final group then spends five years attempting to reach level four of mental development. At age thirty-five, the guardian is finally given a post in the criminal justice system. During a probationary period, the guardian is subject to surprise inspections, what Plato called tests of temptation. These tests are especially devious, and there are three of them: (1) the logic test, where under conditions of stress and fatigue, the guardian has to recite the goodness of public service; (2) the danger test, which involves contrived opportunities for corruption or nonenforcement and if the guardian is willing to take on powerful, vested interests; (3) the pleasure test, in which off-duty guardians must face contrived opportunities for overindulgence in alcohol, illicit sex, and other pleasures. After passing all tests and reaching the age of fifty, the guardian will become a philosopher-king and be admitted into the ruling class of society.

    In order to prevent the possibility of corruption, Plato proposed the off-duty behavior of guardians be regulated. He did not allow them to have wives, as sexual outlets were arranged for them as part of a eugenics program. Regulations also prohibited consumption of alcohol. At least one modern ethicist (Hansen 1973) has echoed Plato's concern that criminal justice employees lead an exemplary life in sexual matters. Sexually motivated misconduct by police may involve license checks (to obtain names and addresses of female drivers), “lovers lane” patrol, “fox hunting” on college campuses, victim recontacts, female detainees, runaways, “police groupies”, and prostitutes (Sapp 1997:147).

ARISTOTLE

    After studying under Plato for 20 years, Aristotle founded his own university, the Lyceum, devoted to biology, natural science, and athletics. It was known for its zoos and botanical gardens, filled with fauna and flora of the world sent back by one of Aristotle's students, Alexander the Great. This political support of higher learning may be the first example of a scientific research grant. Aristotle became expert at classifying almost every living thing and developed a taxonomy of the known sciences that is still used today, along with his rules of syllogism in the field of logic. He dealt with ethics in his most systematic treatise, Nicomachean Ethics. More down-to-earth than Plato, Aristotle nevertheless took a teleological attitude toward the final purpose of action and the possibilities for human nature.

    According to Aristotle, people are born with a human nature which is neither good nor bad. While individual differences exist, one of the most general principles for Aristotle is that each person moves toward the realization of their fullest potential. This is not accomplished by refinement of appetites nor development of skills and abilities, but by what Aristotle calls the production of character. Character is the formative part of personality, the center of all moral virtue. Its growth depends, of course, on how a person is raised, but ultimately, a person is responsible for their own self-realization. Delattre (1996) has written an excellent treatise on character in criminal justice which revolves around the notion of incorruptibility, a form of personal freedom that consists of not even considering, contemplating, or speculating about doing wrong. Personal standards of excellence and self-respect are always more powerful guarantees against lapses in moral judgment than the fear of being caught.

    Excellence in character is not achieved by intellectual development. Intelligence is no guarantee against moral weakness (Souryal 1992). Instead, character involves a habit of thinking, feeling and doing what is an expression of goodness in one's self and choosing the morally correct course of action even though reason and circumstances may dictate otherwise. The function of reason is to choose the proper amount of feeling in every situation that will promote the most character development. Character development simply takes time and practice. Aristotle did not regard anybody as too old to start reforming their personality. The importance of habit acquisition to moral character cannot be overstated. The practice of choosing morally must be instilled in one's self until it becomes second nature and automatic. Nobody really demonstrates virtue by trying to do so. As “political animals”, we are able to detect the phony who is trying too hard. Virtuous people truly are what they appear to be, and they demonstrate it naturally without any regard for praise or admonishment. Further, they have integrity, the quality of appearing whole, and being the same person on- and off-duty.

    Self-realization is not something that can happen all at once to a person in some kind of erotic experience, as with Plato. The study of ethics can serve as a guide, but Aristotle, like the Pythagoreans before him, believed it was easy to do evil. It takes hard work to do good. There should therefore be some way of distinguishing equals (those trying to do their best) from unequals (those not trying) and some way of structuring the interactions between the two. To treat unequals as though they were equals is the worst form of inequality. This is the Aristotelian notion of justice as merit-based equity, and it deserves close examination.

    Whereas with the Hebrews and, to some extent, Plato, justice was to be achieved linearly, for Aristotle the path to justice was cyclic. This means that justice cannot be fulfilled by looking upward toward some abstract ideal, but that it must be firmly grounded in the realities of human nature and everyday life. With regard to human nature, Aristotle clearly believed there were good and bad people. A good person tries to fulfill the purpose for which all human beings exist--to put forth effort to the best of their abilities--and a bad person has developed an excess or deficiency of some aptitude or talent. Good people have ambition, for example, but not too much nor too little. With regard to everyday life, Aristotle believed that the goodness of action should not be judged on the basis of intentions or consequences alone. Something is not right just because there were good intentions or good consequences. First of all, there must be choice involved. Nothing is good unless it involves a hard decision between two alternative choices of action. This is true whether dealing with conventional or illegal behavior. In fact, Aristotle wrote at great length about what has now become our standards of personal responsibility for crime.

    Secondly, there must be deliberation, as best as can be ascertained, for an action to be called good. Deliberation refers to the amount of wisdom put to use, and means a careful consideration of all the implications involved in each alternative course of action. Thirdly, individual differences should be considered since not all people are alike in how they make justice a part of their everyday life. A good person recognizes that there are multiple pathways toward the fulfillment of human potential, and is aware of the need to value the strivings for self-realization in others. When an individual succeeds in living up to the fullest of their potential, they experience a happy condition the Greeks called eudaimonia, the feeling that one has achieved all that is worth desiring and now must depend on the complementarity of excellences, a philosophic principle about how excellence in one brings out the excellent in others (Waterman 1995). Good or bad is a judgment to be made on the merits, what one has accomplished for oneself. True justice always tries to restore the relative position of equity, or proportion, that existed prior to the interaction between good and bad people.

    Book V of Nicomachean Ethics analyzes, mostly in mathematical terms, the various types of justice that Aristotle believed were worthy of the term. What he believed unworthy of the name was simple retribution. If a person strikes another, for example, they should not be struck in return. It depends upon whom they strike, the strength of the blow, the ability of the victim to take a punch, what the attacker got out of it, and what the victim lost. Using money as a fine to remedy the situation relies upon equality, but there can be no real equality, or basis for exchange, without the notion of equity. Some things look alike, but they matter more or less than others. Aristotle disliked impersonal definitions of justice. One notes that almost all the types he discussed in Book V have something to do with relationships between people.

    Justice as virtue always involves a determination of the golden mean and what kind of excess and deficiency is involved. The idea of finding the middle path of moderation as a guide to moral action is, of course, not exclusively a western notion, but what is particularly western is the concept of a golden mean, a middle ground that is both rational and emotional, knowing that one is experiencing the right emotion at the right time, for the right reason, in the right manner, toward the right thing, and in the right place. Aristotle’s doctrine of the golden mean has been criticized as being mostly aesthetic, but it has had widespread impact in terms of being a practical ethical guide. In giving particular examples of means and extremes, Aristotle used a chart to illustrate his doctrine.

    As Aristotle’s chart shows, the two extremes (excess and deficiency) are most opposed to one another, and in fact, should be polar opposites. The mean may be closer to one extreme than another, and if it appears so, one should always avoid the extreme most opposed to the mean. This indicates Aristotle found choosing the lesser of two evils acceptable. Another general rule is to force yourself away from whichever extreme is immediately pleasurable to you. To follow the pleasurable route would be hedonism, a tendency to act on your basest instincts. Courage has an important place in Aristotelian ethics, perhaps as important as friendship, and it is difficult to declare one or the other as summa bonum. Courage is important because all throughout Aristotle’s ethics, there is concern for taking risks. From choosing voluntary action (as opposed to reflexive behavior) all the way to avoiding the most natural extreme (in working on your character development), courage is important. A courageous person does not dismiss fear altogether (as a reckless person would); they simply endure it with nobility, knowing precisely what there is to fear. Friendship is important because, according to Aristotle, people are political (social) animals, and self-realized individuals (after they have developed their character to the fullest) must depend on interaction with others who display excellence in their own ways.

HELLENISTIC PHILOSOPHY

    The period following Aristotle until the fall of the Roman Empire is called the Hellenistic Age, a term signifying the lasting influence of the Greeks, also known as the hellenes. During the Hellenistic Age, people, both Greek and Roman, wanted ways to live a virtuous life in the face of rapidly changing social conditions. A variety of philosophies were developed, all having a more practical, personal, and action-oriented approach to ethics.

    Stoicism was overwhelming the most popular philosophy. For every Epicurean, there were about ten Stoics. The Stoics sought to control their reactions to inevitable events, to free themselves from all feelings that deprive the self of peace of mind, to achieve a condition they called apathy, and to accept with dignified resignation one’s role in life. They were profoundly influenced by the example of Socrates, who faced death with serenity and courage. Believing that mind is blank at birth and all reality is material, and all material follows some rational order or purpose (called logos), the Stoics thought that ethical conduct was whatever was in accordance with the structure and order of the whole of nature. Human rationality is simply a reflection of rationality in nature and an awareness of one’s place in the continued growth of that order. Standards of conduct that relate human behavior and institutions to a pattern of continued development and order in all of nature are part of natural law, one of the great contributions of the Stoics. Natural law has tremendous ethical appeal. On the one hand, nature represents an ideal toward which human potential can strive; on the other hand, even if it only means basic human nature, it still allows for distinguishing what is unnatural or unmoral for people.

    The Stoics went further than natural law, however. What appealed to the Romans was their idea of common law, a jus gentium that applied to Roman citizens as well as throughout the empire. The Stoic notion of cosmopolitanism, of universal brotherhood, that all citizens are part of the same human community is the direct ancestor of all common law conceptions, and represents another of their lasting contributions. Since all humans are composed of matter themselves and share the same logos, it follows that all humans communities everywhere should at least have some laws in common and share a universal natural law of justice.

    A second popular philosophy, Epicureanism, is best seen as a refinement of Cyrenaic hedonism, the first known hedonism. The Cyrenaics were a fourth century B.C. group who advocated intense, frequent, and immediate pleasures for their own sake. Hedonism refers to any philosophy which makes pleasure the sole standard of human conduct. Cyrenaic hedonism, as Souryal (1992) points out, is deontological because it is only concerned with pursuing pleasure for its own sake. Epicurean hedonism, in contrast, is teleological because it is concerned with enduring pleasures and the consequences of pleasure-seeking. Cyrenaic hedonism regarded all pleasures, no matter how crude or physical, as good in themselves whereas Epicurean hedonism regarded pleasure as the springboard from which all other emotions flow. Both hedonisms trust feelings to be the basis for determining if something is good or bad, but Epicureanism requires considering if the mental consequences are pleasurable.

    Epicureans believed the ultimate pleasure to be ataraxia, a Greek word meaning peace of mind, tranquility, and repose. To achieve this, people must scale down their desires, overcome useless fears, and turn to seeking mental pleasures (which have the effect of calming the body; mental health brings about physical health; ideas have consequences). To scale down desires, the Epicureans advocated frugality, living within one’s financial means and needing little. To overcome fear, the Epicureans had two solutions. One, forget about God, as all that exists are an infinite number of atoms arranged without any purpose in the universe. Two, seek out the company of pleasant, decent people like yourself and arrange a social compact to work towards the establishment of just laws that deter those who would harm you and your kind. This idea of a social compact is the first known conception of social contract, an agreement between individuals, or between individuals and a government, to give up some liberties in return for the guarantee of more freedom, personal safety, and a well-ordered society. The idea of a social compact actually goes back to Plato, as a theory about the origin of the State, and the idea is found in almost all beliefs about a great flood or deluge, where people turned to like-minded others in the aftermath. The invention of social contract thinking on the part of the Epicureans represents one of their greatest contributions to ethical theory. The social contract has been used literally or figuratively throughout the ages, even today, to argue for or against the fairness of a criminal law, the adequacy of police protection, or the justice of sentencing and punishment. A closely related term is state of nature which means what life was like, or would have been like, if there was no social contract.

    Skepticism, a third popular philosophy, was a doctrine of perseverance. Those who persevere in searching for truth are the most virtuous, not those who claim to have found it, nor those who have given up. The Skeptics hoped to achieve a calm state of mind by suspending judgment about anything and anybody. The wise person admits that they really don’t know. All people can do is render opinion, and for each opinion, there is an equally compelling case for the opposite opinion. Customs and laws provide the only reliable guides to action, and beyond this, there is only the sensation of probability that occurs inside of us like an instinct or intuition which guides us to behave morally. Skepticism is based on the method of doubt, of keeping an open mind, and never resorting to dogmatism or fanaticism. While a great many varieties of Skepticism seemingly justify criminal more than ethical behavior, the lasting contributions are a respect for laws in different places and the method of doubt.

    The Peripatetics movement was not a dominant philosophy, but rather a carryover from the ancient Greek emphasis on physical fitness. The tradition dates back to Aristotle who walked as he was thinking, and the belief is a reversal of Epicurean thought in that a healthy body is said to produce healthy thoughts. Physical fitness has long been recognized as a requirement to work in criminal justice, and perhaps there is some relationship between physical and mental stamina. Today, however, many police departments face the possibility of court challenges as a result of their physical agility standards. Height and weight discrimination as well as special score adjustments based on race or gender violate the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Gaines, Falkenberg & Gambino 1993). There is also some question about whether a physically-demanding crisis brings out the best in police character (see Box 3-5). People attracted to careers in law enforcement are typically action-oriented, and pride themselves on split-second, life-or-death decisions. However, there is only a handful of research suggesting that high risk situations bring out moral reasoning (Scharf, Linninger, Marrero, Baker & Rice 1978).

    Neoplatonism, a syncretic philosophy that offered itself as an alternative to Christianity, was eventually censured and shut down wherever taught by the Holy Roman Church. Its ideas about evil being a shadow of good were replaced by the doctrine of parallelism, which constitutes a major element in Scholastic philosophy, the subject of another lecture. Like most of the Hellenistic philosophies, Neoplatonism helped to preserve the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, the two main figures in the classical school, and build a bridge to the Medieval period.

THE CLASSICAL ETHICS CHECKLIST

    It would be impossible to incorporate all the various themes of classical philosophy into a single checklist. Nevertheless, it is possible to draw upon some of the major ideas, to construct a checklist of questions one would ask themself to arrive at a solution compatible with the ethics of classicism. Blanchard and Peale (1988), in a bestselling book on the power of ethical management, have attempted to develop a simple and easy-to-use checklist, which is reproduced here with only a few revisions. If classicism is to be your choice for developing a personal ethics, then you should ask yourself the following questions whenever you are confronted with the need to make a decision or take action.

    Step one (1) is a reminder of lex justica. Obviously, you should always act legally and follow your employer’s policies and procedures. However, discretion begins where the law ends; discretion is the hole in the donut of law. There would be no need for ethics if every decision had a predetermined right answer. It is important to know what the law requires you to do as a ministerial agent, but it is even more important to realize the law is only a second-best for justice, a trade-off. The possibility of perfect outcomes is traded off for security against the worst outcomes (Reiman 1996). In conflicts between duty and justice, always choose justice, or at least find a lawful departure from duty (Kadish & Kadish 1973). Do not be influenced by emotions, as the Stoics warned. Surround yourself with people who exercise lawful and ethical discretion. Commit yourself to excellence by doing more than what is merely required of you.

    Step two(2) can mean deliberation about the golden mean or the task of determining if it is fair to everyone involved, both short- and long-term. An Epicurean or teleological viewpoint would apply in the second case. You should think about the mental consequences or what you can live with the most. Don’t do anything you might lose sleep over. In the first case, apply the golden mean, avoiding the extreme you are most naturally inclined to. This will help you in character development, and most likely be fair to all involved since it has the virtue of not being dogmatism and fanaticism.

    Step three (3) involves maintaining your incorruptibility of character by various forms of “disclosure tests” (Nash 1990) or custom-made questions you ask yourself. One of the oldest such questions was devised by Plato himself: If you had the power of invisibility, would you do anything different? A custom-made favorite might be: what would my mother (or supervisor) think. Given the impact of the Rodney King incident, it behooves you to act as if you were being videotaped at all times. Your decisions are likely to be ethical if you wouldn’t mind them being printed on the front page of the local newspaper. Make sure that each alternative you consider at least meets the criteria of public justifiability. Ideally, you can withstand public scrutiny.

INTERNET RESOURCES
Classic Notes on Aristotle's Ethics
Epicurean Philosophy
Greek Philosophy Archive
Internet Resources on Aristotle and Virtue Ethics
Overview of Aristotle's Ethics
Overview of Plato's Ethics
The Peripatetics and Stoics on Mental Emotion
The Philosophy of the Stoics
Virtue Ethics Explained

PRINTED RESOURCES
Agretelis, D. (1964). "Mens Rea in Plato and Aristotle," Issues in Criminology 1: 19-33.
Alexander, F. & Selesnick, S. (1966). The History of Psychiatry: An Evaluation of Psychiatric Thought and Practice From Prehistoric Times to the Present. New York: Harper & Row.
Bernard, T. (1983). The Consensus-Conflict Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.
Drapkin, I. (1989). Crime and Punishment in the Ancient World. Lexington: Lexington Books.
Holland, K. (1980). "Socrates--The First Criminal Justice Educator," Criminal Justice Review 5: 1-4.
Hunter, V. (1994). Policing Athens. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jones, W. (1969). The Classical Mind: A History of Western Philosophy. 2nd edition. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Lavine, T. (1984). From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest. New York: Bantam Books.
Long, A. (1975). Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Skeptics. New York: Scribner’s.
MacKenzie, M. (1981). Plato on Punishment. Berkeley: Berkeley Univ. Press.
Nash, L. (1990). “Ethics Without the Sermon” in Essentials of Business Ethics. Edited by P. Madsen & J. Shafritz, pp. 38-62. New York: Penguin Books.
Orru, M. (1987). Anomie: History and Meanings. Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Pollock, J. (2004). Ethics in Crime and Justice, 4e. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Rubin, L. (Ed.) (1997). Justice v. Law in Greek Political Thought. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Souryal, S. (1992). Ethics in Criminal Justice: In Search of the Truth. Cincinnati: Anderson.
Stumpf, S. (1993). Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy. 5th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Waterman, A. (1995). “Eudaimonic Theory: Self-Realization and the Collective Good” in Moral Development: An Introduction. Edited by W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz, pp. 255-77. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Last updated: June 29, 2007
Not an official webpage of APSU, copyright restrictions apply, see Megalinks in Criminal Justice
O'Connor, T.  (Date of Last Update at bottom of page). In Part of web cited (Windows name for file at top of browser), MegaLinks in Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/rest of URL accessed on today's date.