Originally posted by: datalink7
yowolabi,
I suppose I should have said... that is from Plato's Republic. Socrates/Plato is trying to argue that it is always better to do justice instead of injustice. That is one of the counter arguments that crops up.
Here is another (poorly paraphrased by me):
To say that it is always better to do justice instead of injustice (note that justice can be interchangable with good), we have to set up the following scenario. Take a injust man, who can do whatever he wants. He does all kinds of injust things. But he is thought by everyone to be the most just man there is, and so recives all the rewards of being thought the most just man. Everyone thinks he is a good and moral person, while in reality he can break any ethic or moral that he wants, whenever he wants, and never gets caught doing it.
Now there is another man. He always does justice. Never commits an evil act. But he is thought to be the most despicable person alive. He gets no reward for doing any of the good things that he does, and is in fact despised for it. When he dies he is remembered as a great evil.
Now, can you truely say that the just man in the above scenario is better off than the unjust man? To truely say that you are better off doing justice as opposed to injustice, then you have to say yes, and truely be able to defend that position.
Interesting thoughts. I'll definitely pick up a copy within the next week.
As far as the question, I say yes, and I'll probably always say yes (I invite you to challenge me, though).
When it's asked "are you better off doing justice as opposed to injustice", the answer to the question depends a lot on the person doing the answering. The answer to the question depends on where your values lie. I come from the perspective of a person who has a solid moral core. I believe that truth is more important than winning. I believe that being happy with yourself is more important than others being happy with you.
It's hard to put myself into your scenario completely because my mind tells me that a person who lives justly at all times can never be despised by all. By some, or maybe even most, but those who knew him closely would never be able to believe him to be evil.
To complete this scenario, you would also need to say in the example that there is no afterlife. If you don't, then it's too simple to say that, since the afterlife is longer than the earthly one, the just man will still come out better in the end. Even if this was said though, I would imagine that the just man, knowing the truth of his actions would be happier than the unjust one, knowing himself to be a fraud.
I'm actually changing my opinion as I type, because I just thought of something.
The unjust one who does unjust things as a matter of course would probably not be too troubled by conscience, as it doesn't bother him in other actions. The just one who regularly makes personal sacrifices in order to stay true to a higher ideal would not be too troubled by people's misperceptions.
I don't really see a universal case to be made for either side in this scenario. I believe that they'll both be very satisfied by their lives. Thankfully, I don't believe that this scenario can ever be true to life. While a person can be secretly unjust and adored by all and praised as just, I don't believe the converse is true. I believe a just person will be adored by those close to him at the very least, and thus will have both outward praise, and inward peace.