Posts
Ernie states that he doesn't believe that moral obligations are seperable from merit. Vlastos goes on to argue with this, sort of. "His offence against the law does not put him outside the law" (55). He is saying that even though a man is wrong or does wrong things doesn't mean that he has the right to be treated poorly. This seems to go against what the golden rule is, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Therefore, if one person is mean or immoral to you they are only to expect the same thing back.
This is one of the main points that I thought about after I read the previous posts. One other thing I understood was part three when he describes when an action is just or not. This was a difficult article to understand the meaning to but I got through it with many questions left to ask.
Mental Models of Purpose of College
2 years ago
Using the same quote you did Rachel I found the passage to say something else. I do not agree with your conclusion " if one person is mean or immoral to you they are only to expect the same thing back". I think Vlasots is talking about something else here. For example the sentence right before your quote reads "one has no right to be cruel to a cruel person". I took your quote as saying that just because someone has offended you, that does not give you the right to punish them (we have to obey the rules established by our moral community). Lastly, think of the last example used in that same paragraph. "the fact that a man has been condemned to death does not license his gaolers to beat him or virtuous citizens to beat him". What the point of this passage is, I believe, is that we cannot take Justice into our own individual hands while we are a member of a moral community
ReplyDelete