Thrasymachus said that justice "is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger." Do you agree? Why or why not?
so, we encounter ourselves with this statement "justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger"
well, i don't agree with Thrasymachus. IF justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger (over the weak), whouldn't that be injustice? I believe that there are some people who are strong, but i also know that there other who are stronger that those. justice is the idea that everything /everyone are the same and no one is weaker or stronger thatn the other.
"he said that the advantage of the stronger is what the stronger believes to be his advantage. This is what must be done by the weaker, and this is what is set down as just" see this is how it is, right the stronger my be advantageous, by he woudln't know he is only the weaker do something for him, and that is what gives him his advantage over the weak. but that is no just. and although i don't agree with Thrasymachus, i have to admit that we live in a world where unfutunally the statement " justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger"
Does having the ability to do something make it morally acceptable to do that thing? Put differently--if you can, may you? Why or why not?
i believe that having the ability to do something and weather is morally acceptable or no will depend according to the situation and the person it's self. if you have the ability to do something is up to us to decide if it is morally right or not. example, if you are in a situation where you have the ability to do something and someone depends on taht decission, then hell yea is right. but that person has to deal with the consequences if it isn't morally right. but if it isn't under certain circumtances, then it isn't morraly acceptable to do so. it isn't right to do something because you can or you have the power to do do it, because one day someone will come who can do whatever you do better than what you do.
No comments:
Post a Comment