Ethics

Thrasymachus said that justice "is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger."  Do you agree?  Why or why not?

To a degree and in a sense, I do agree that justice may be interpreted as advantage of the stronger. He goes on and explains himself that “some cities are ruled tyrannically, some democratically, and some aristocratically”. And in regards to this example, they are all governed in some ways shape or form of ruling master. Say presidents, governments, kings in form of leaders, captains etc.. He furthers his argument that each ruling group lays down laws for its own advantages and those who break/departs those laws will be punished. While examples given are true, that justice is advantageous to those of the stronger such as higher-ups, such laws also have to followed by rule makers. Such people in office, people close to throne (king/queen), people in law enforcement resemble their position in power to their advantage but it can also be a disadvantageous for those because they are the ruler/creator. Without commitment, cities and kingdoms will easily fall. These may all be true statements that justice advantage to the stronger but just as easily disadvantageous as well.

In a sense, I believe justice has an underlying principle that sets baseline what is tolerated by forms of laws. It’s giving a base for something to be accepted and obeyed upon. Whether some laws are correct or incorrect may be debatable, it gives a starting point to look at whatever things may become problematic. I believe justice is for the greater good. Without a baseline to start at, everything can become hugely problematic. If there aren’t rules that are being governed and accepted by a society, there would be no society. This also means anyone can go out and do anything they absolutely want or can. Which leads to the next question:

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?

            This depends highly on the person and the situation they are put in. If I was put in the situation similar to the new hit show “Crisis” where parents are forced to do everything humanly possible to save their children, I probably would. This new show involves parents giving in to kidnappers and doing heinous crimes such as, breaking into the FBI/CIA buildings stealing confidential information and exposing it to the news. (The show is fake, just saying). I believe it all depends on the person & what they believe is morally acceptable given the situation. If I can, I may or may not. This does not mean it’s okay or acceptable to go and kidnap kids because I believe its okay. If someone points a gun to your head and forces you physically or mentally to do it, or else they will shoot you & your children, I probably will comply. This doesn’t mean its morally acceptable to me, it just means I had to do it for the sake of children if anything. One thing for sure, based on the decisions we make, that having an ability to do something is morally acceptable may also be unforgiving. I remember the first few weeks in class, we had a given situation where you can only rescue one person. You can rescue your child who is a great swimmer, versus a neice or nephew who is not a great swimmer, who do you save? All gut feeling leads to you going for your child first. While this is morally acceptable, this is unforgiving at the same time to myself as a person. It all depends on the situation I believe.