This week in class, we discussed
justice, Plato’s take on justice, and Gyges’ ring. In my own opinion, justice
is a rightful nondiscriminatory action. But I also believe that people would not
act in a justified manner if certain rules weren’t put in place and if they
knew that consequences would come behind their wrongdoings.
Although there is a morality and religious
aspect to justice, the law helps us as citizens practice justified actions. For
instance, we know that it is morally wrong to commit murder, and that there are
consequences behind that action that come from both our own conscience and the
law, whether it be jail time and/or capital punishment or our guilt eating us
alive.
In Gyges’ ring, an “upright” man
discovers a ring that makes him invisible when turned a certain way and when
the question was asked, “What would you do if you had the ring and became
invisible”, some answered that they would seek revenge on those that have done
them wrong, try to find out government secrets, and rob banks.
Moreover, I would do two of the three things;
rob a bank and attempt to find government secrets. Just as Gyge started to do
immoral things when he knew that he wouldn’t be found out, many of us would do
the same.
So the question really is, do we act in justly
manners because it’s the right thing to do? Or is it because we know the
consequences behind it? Are we justified only when people are watching and
unjustified in private? Anyone would do unjust things if they knew there weren’t
any consequences behind it, but who would still act justified even if no one
was watching? Is it because they are morally right or is it because of their
religion? Or are they just a good person regardless of morals and religion?
I agree with you that people would act unjustly without rules and consequences, but I feel like the consequences severely outweigh the rules in what's stopping people from acting unjustly. I agree with your comment about morality and religion in respects to justice, but I feel that the law only goes so far. People commit murder every day. And for a far less dramatic example, people steal every day. They're laws against stealing and it's completely unmoral and against pretty much every religion, but people still do it. Just to pose a question: What if someone who is dying from starvation -- is it okay for them to steal food in order to survive or should they die from starvation because stealing is against the law, against morals, and against religion?
ReplyDeleteYou make a very good argument in your concluding questions. In regards to how consequences seem to be guiding peoples' decisions and attitude towards the morality of certain actions. For instance seeking revenge on others is something people said they would do, knowing that it is immoral but willing to do it anyway just because there would be no punishment.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a person would act in an unjust manner because there are no rules. However we must realize that some people will recognize the chaos that having no rules will create. Therefore someone will try to create some form of order by creating rules. The only downside to that is that there's a very good chance that people will not abide by these rules and probably kill the guy who created them. What I'm trying to say is that person's action can vary in a world without rules. Some of will take advantage of the freedom and do whatever they see fit and then some will try to bring about structure and organization.
ReplyDelete