The Glauconian articulation of the truly just man is for him to be just for its own sake, without having an eye towards its rewards. On the contrary, to be truly just it to lead a wretched life. Why, then, would we want to be just? Is it worth it?
That I can ask this question already presupposes the difficulty of being just simply. Somehow the motivation to be just is always tempered with a utilitarian schema, tempered with some form of rational cost-benefit calculation.
So if it is so hard (or impossible) to be just for its own sake, is it time for us to re-evaluate our conditions of being just?
Because the desire to look towards one's own benefit is always alot stronger than the good of someone else when they come into conflict. Do I look after myself (even though it might be ethically dubious) or do I tend to the needs of others because it is right (but inherently unpleasant to one's self)? It is something that we inevitably have to face instead of sweeping it under the carpet and pretend that it's not there.
The inexorable call to look after Number One grows increasingly tempting indeed.
That I can ask this question already presupposes the difficulty of being just simply. Somehow the motivation to be just is always tempered with a utilitarian schema, tempered with some form of rational cost-benefit calculation.
So if it is so hard (or impossible) to be just for its own sake, is it time for us to re-evaluate our conditions of being just?
Because the desire to look towards one's own benefit is always alot stronger than the good of someone else when they come into conflict. Do I look after myself (even though it might be ethically dubious) or do I tend to the needs of others because it is right (but inherently unpleasant to one's self)? It is something that we inevitably have to face instead of sweeping it under the carpet and pretend that it's not there.
The inexorable call to look after Number One grows increasingly tempting indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment