Ebo
über Farkan
Posts: 253
|
Justice
Apr 21, 2009 22:03:57 GMT -5
Post by Ebo on Apr 21, 2009 22:03:57 GMT -5
The Ring of Gyges in Plato's Republic brings up some questions about our nature. From this point on, if you knew and were 100% sure that you would never, ever have to face consequences of any kind for any of your actions, no matter what you did, would you do what you know is wrong? In other words, does justice hold intrinsic value?
Hobbes and Locke clearly didn't agree with each other since Hobbes suggests that the notion that our respect of and adherence to justice is only intact because of fear of authority and consequences, while Locke suggests that freedom is the basis of a good society and that people would use reason to do what is just and use justice as a tool to better all.
IMO, you really can't say that one side is wrong or right and the thing is, we know using fear and extreme control is no way to lead people, and we know people don't usually use reason and with too much freedom they'll do dumb things. So where's the balance?
If I never had to face any consequences, I'd like to say that, still, I wouldn't do wrong, but that's only wishful thinking even if I still face consequences. I can't say for sure that I wouldn't be destroyed by temptation, but thankfully no one will ever face such a horrible situation.
|
|
|
Justice
Apr 21, 2009 22:47:20 GMT -5
Post by Jeiku on Apr 21, 2009 22:47:20 GMT -5
I guess it's just a matter of one's own personal morals?
|
|
|
Justice
Apr 22, 2009 9:19:17 GMT -5
Post by Rose on Apr 22, 2009 9:19:17 GMT -5
I think it depends on the person. I think more people would end up acting like criminals do even with the law but there is always people who will fight for good. In fact Romanticists believe that civilization ruins the people. They believe we would be more for heroism than anything but civilization advances and we lose that value. I think it was different but it makes some sense if you look at it.
|
|