Abstract

Antiphon is often criticized for confusing two distinct species of responsibility, causal and moral. Insofar as this distinction is fundamental to any mature legal or ethical theory, Antiphon appears at best naïve, at worst dishonest. I argue that a careful analysis of his second tetralogy reveals that Antiphon was well aware of the distinction and the rationale for recognizing it. However, Antiphon questions whether the distinction can be so easily made in every case, and he suggests that the inadequacy of the distinction might have radical implications for traditional ideas at the core of the Greek legal system. In short, Antiphon's second tetralogy gives us yet another reason to question whether the sophists were as philosophically unsophisticated as we are often led to believe.