Scripture analysis
Should Wrongdoing Be Answered with Wrongdoing?
Translation used: Benjamin Jowett
Moral issue: Can injustice ever justify committing another injustice?
Passage
We ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him.
Plain meaning
Socrates argues that suffering an injustice does not make it morally right to commit an injustice in return.
Historical context
The dialogue takes place while Socrates awaits execution. Crito urges him to escape, but Socrates examines whether escape would violate duties and principles he previously accepted.
Traditional interpretation
The passage is often understood as an early defence of moral consistency and refusal to retaliate unjustly.
Ethical problem
The argument can be misused to demand passive obedience from people facing oppression. It also raises difficult questions about unjust laws and duties toward an unjust state.
Reasoned analysis
Rejecting retaliation is ethically strong when it prevents cycles of harm. It does not require passivity: resistance, protection and lawful challenge may be justified without reproducing the original injustice.
Possible conclusions
Wrongdoing does not automatically justify further wrongdoing. Responses to injustice should aim at protection, correction and justice rather than revenge.