Hesiod and Anaximander were considered two of the most important figures in Pre-Socratic philosophy. Unsurprisingly, they tried similar techniques to make sense of the natural world. Yet, their differing interpretations of the notion of retributive justice highlight the core distinctions between their beliefs about nature’s relation to man. My working definition of retributive justice is simply punishment for wrongful acts. While Hesiod’s approach relies on deistical usage of nature as a vehicle to ensure justice, Anaximander’s theory relies on an inescapable natural order to bring justice and restore balance. Anaximander’s theory is the better of the two because instead of using nature as a tool, it allows nature to take agency in retributive matters. It is also more empirically intuitive. This eliminates any aspect of human fallibility that might negatively affect retributive repercussions.
In Works and Days, Zeus, son of Kronos, bestows retribution upon the unjust (McKirahan 13). The implications of Hesiod’s description are fairly drastic. The mere thought of a cruel or evil deed is enough to warrant the Olympian’s intervention. Once Zeus has “ordained justice”, no one is spared. Not only is the evildoer punished, his entire city is punished, as well. The…show more content… It does not consider whether there is a point at which the earth can and will perish. He recognizes that things on the Earth, all of which came from the apeiron, live and perish. The living things on the Earth replace the nonliving and vice versa. However, as McKirahan points out, Anaximander’s theory does not account for the role of the Earth itself (46). Since everything arose from the apeiron, so the Earth must have arisen from it as well. Therefore, according to this theory, the Earth must exist in opposition to something else in order for justice to be
