12 Angry Men in Relation to Plato

12 Angry Men in Relation to Plato

“To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images-”

It is my opinion that the concepts presented in the plot of 12 Angry Men can best be correlated with the concepts presented in Plato's The Allegory of the Cave. While the concepts of The Allegory of the Cave are metaphorical, they can very easily be related to those that are literal in 12 Angry Men. Both stories are about social conflict, and minority influence. They both present ideas about enlightenment and truth; exposing the danger and irresponsibility that can be found so often in collective thinking. Maybe it is also possible that because the main character of 12 Angry Men (Juror #8) uses the Socratic method of inquiry to change the minds of the others, perhaps this is why I find it easy to relate the writings of Plato (having been a student of Socrates) to the theme of 12 Angry Men.

Both the main characters in The Allegory- as well as in 12 Angry Men seem to have much in common with each other. Juror #8 was the only juror who initially did not vote guilty, stating that he could not send a boy off to die without at least further deliberation. He took a noble stand, and it was his composure, logical analysis, and inquisition of accuracy and reliability which sets the stage for the rest of the story. He determined that there was a 'reasonable doubt' in his mind that the boy may not be guilty, and despite the brash and angry criticisms of his fellow jurors, he did not abandon his stance on the matter. Also, when the other jurors voted guilty, leaving him the minority in an 11 to 1 vote- he could have chosen to go with the status quo, but refused to give in as a means to an end. What differentiates this particular juror from the others, is that he saw their decision as a responsibility to justice which he was not willing to sacrifice. Because of this, the juror found himself using minority influence to slowly change the minds of the majority, through the consistency in his arguments but also the grace in which he embraced the other jurors way of thinking. In The Allegory of the Cave upon his return, the prisoner who had escaped also faced a grueling majority and their differing outlook, finding himself in a similar situation and moral dilemma. Just as Juror #8 did not blindly conform, in truth and reason there is no turning back, just as in The Allegory Plato states, “Imagine once more, I said, such as one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?”

The cave in the story represents a prison, a confined area in which the people know nothing outside of. In relating the cave itself to 12 Angry Men it does not exist in a physical sense, but again in a metaphorical sense- a frame of mind. The cave represents the box, as in- the jurors were confined in their own shallow thinking, and therefore were not thinking 'outside the box'. The main character of The Allegory wandered up and outside of the cave, just as the main character of 12 Angry Men was the only one to 'think outside of the box'. Though both had a larger perspective on truth and reality, they had a difficult time attempting to present this perspective to the others (the prisoners/ those not thinking outside the box). Just as the other jurors thought that Juror #8 was being absurd, so did the prisoners of the cave: “And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous?”

The main character of The Allegory tried to show the other prisoners that the shadows they saw were not realities; that they were only illusions and that their focus on them and not beyond them was denying them of the truth. “If a prisoner says “That’s a book” he thinks that the word “book” refers to the very thing he is looking at. But he would be wrong. He’s only looking at a shadow. The real referent of the word “book” he cannot see. To see it, he would have to turn his head around.” In 12 Angry Men the evidence in the case can also be viewed as shadows. The evidence is one perception, but that does not necessarily mean that is the correct perception, nor does it mean that it is even relevant. Juror #8 felt an obligation to 'save' the other jurors from presumed truths, and to open their eyes to other possibilities, all the while with respect to their own views, beliefs, and even blind assumptions. This same attitude of empathy was also demonstrated in The Allegory, as the freed prisoner chooses willingly to go back and attempt to enlighten and 'free' the other prisoners, even against all odds.

At the beginning of 12 Angry Men after the judge dismisses the jurors from the court room in order to go deliberate, he first says this; “If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, a reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty. If however, there is no reasonable doubt, then you must in good conscience find the accused guilty. However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous. In the event that you find the accused guilty, the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentence is mandatory in this case. You are faced with a grave responsibility. Thank you, gentlemen.” As I said, Juror #8 was the only man who did not jump to conclusions and hence, the only man who took the responsibility as seriously as it is intended. After the prisoner in The Allegory breaks free, he embraces that freedom, but yet feels obligated still to go back and try to free the others. Here freedom and responsibility are not antonymous by any means, as there is a responsibility within freedom. What the two characters in both stories share, is summed up in the teachings of both Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, with the argument that- “Freedom requires moral courage.”