Episode 63: Nicomachean Ethics V-3: Law and Justice (Will you pass the Bar?)

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:27

All right, welcome to another episode of Resiliency Rounds with uh your co-host uh Jeremy and Anish. Um we are in the thick of Aristotle's Nicomachian ethics. Um and before we get started, we we just kind of want to talk about um we noticed that we've got you know uh we're about a thousand listeners of downloads away from hitting 10,000. Um when Anish and I started, which is incredible. Um and Anish started this, you know, this uh path in uh you know three uh three seasons ago with with Eddie. Um and then this season I joined in. And from the beginning with with Anish and Eddie, it was a passion project, and it was a passion project for when I joined as well. You know, uh Anish and I were going through the books together, learning together, and uh and he you know convinced me really to start recording, um, and and to continuing on with what what they started. Um so we've kind of shifted our perspective a little bit on all right, well, if we've got almost 10,000 downloads, people are listening, uh, and we should um maybe we should take it a little seriously, a little bit more seriously. Um, we've got a new logo, we're gonna try a little bit more structure in our conversations. Uh Anisha and I can sometimes go on for an hour and a half straight and get really deep into something, but um, we received uh you know some feedback that that could help us actually you know make this more applicable. Um so if you're listening um and you like this, we ask that you give us a rating, that you give us a review, that you subscribe, and that you share. Um, and we really think if if you if you're listening and you find this of interest, you probably know someone else who would as well. Uh the conversations I have had in the last couple of weeks is is one of the reasons why we've started to shift is because we noticed that one, we started looking at the fact that people are listening, but also that um that the more and more conversations I have out in the world, the more people are actually really interested in philosophy. Uh and um this is our intellectual heritage. It's you know, and this is an opportunity to reach more people, you know. The um the great books, the great conversations, the foundation that philosophy gives us to live our lives and to live in society are uh are are critical, and um and we believe that we're doing our part, our little small part, in just sharing our thoughts and processing this as we go. Anish, would you like to add anything to that?

SPEAKER_00 3:32

It this is the thank you, Jeremy, for uh leading us into that. Uh you're right, there is a certain responsibility that we all share in participating in something that is beyond us. It was when we started Resiliency Rounds, it was just a passion project. It was a way for me to make sure I continue to read and continue to have conversations with my friends about conversations that I that that that I find personally very enriching. But it was a selfish project. I did it for myself. And in all fairness, it should be beyond that. And the and I've been very encouraged by the fact that we've had folks listening in and providing feedback, but we we want to do more, just like you said, and so part of our process of revamping this is to organize our episodes, and instead of just providing our opinions on what is being said in the pages, we have decided that we are going to, based on the feedback, we've decided that we are going to pose questions, questions that should lead to reflection, reflection both for Jeremy and me, and then for for you guys who are listening. And hopefully, based on those reflections lead to a change in in our actions that makes the world a better place. And we need that. The world today, there's something going on. And I think these concepts of justice, temperance, courage, wisdom, these concepts we need to solidify them inside of our mind. We need to build a toolkit that allows us to evaluate every uh situation that we encounter and with and use this the gravity of these virtues to be able to then act in those situations and and be and and willfully look for an end that is in direction of the common good. Each of us needs to do that. And in the past, like we I used to be very skeptical about it, right? I should be like, well, I can't expect my neighbor to do this, you know, if the only person that can change is me. But that's fine. Like if each one of us creates the the republic inside of us, creates the virtues inside of us and and behaves in a way that is toward the common good, the world would be a much better place for it. And I think there is that is that's an important part of society and of culture. We need to create that. It behooves us to do so. We have we have seen what it looks like if we stray from it. If we say that none of this matters, you know, nobody cares, we've seen what it looks like, and and we've seen what society can be. And it's this is not how it should be. So uh in that way, Jeremy, we're gonna we're gonna change the way resiliency rounds uh is uh is yeah, is produced and uh and curated and uh discussed with our audience, and we're really hoping that we get feedback. And look, if if your feedback is one star, right? If your feedback is like, you know, this is terrible, tell us why. You know, we want look, we are not podcasters like you know, we're just regular Joes, but you know, we've been doing this for a while, and um, and we love it, and and we want you to love it. And if we can make this any better, please give us feedback and we will improve and we will get better. Okay, so thank you again. Thank you everybody for listening, and thank you, my gosh, 10,000 downloads. I would have never thought that we would come that close to this.

SPEAKER_01 7:22

There's no way, very exciting, right?

SPEAKER_00 7:25

Yeah, it's super exciting.

SPEAKER_01 7:27

Kind of hit me like a slap across the face when you shared that with me. I was like, oh my gosh, uh, maybe we should take ourselves uh take this seriously a little bit, right? And um, and and I'll just say one more thing and then we can jump in, which is like it was last episode or two episodes. I even questioned myself in terms of my like what am I doing reading this, right? And and and you called me out, uh you actually waited till the end of the episode, but I it you know, I think you were triggered by it being like, no, no, no, no, no. This is for everyone, and you're you're asking deep questions and you're trying to understand it. And that's I think that it's important to kind of re you know, for it was important for my own reframe, but it's important for others who are listening to this because some of the feedback is like, wow, this is pretty, this is this is hard, this is deep, it gets it gets tricky, it's not easy to read, and that's the point. And part of what we're trying to do is make it more um accessible to everyone because we can all benefit from this. So, with that, we'll start with a real light question, right? We're in we're in book five of uh Nicki Mokke and Ethics. Um, we're starting on chapter two. We discussed in great detail chapter one, last last episode, but we're gonna go through a few chapters today with a different type of frame. And the first question we're starting with is and this is the overall question that we'd like you to think about, and we'll come back to it at the end, which is are you just following the law, or do we have to hold ourselves to a higher state, a higher standard? So as we're going through our lives, are we just following the laws that exist, or should we be holding ourselves to a higher standard?

SPEAKER_00 9:10

Yeah, I think that sums up these few chapters now. What Aristotle is saying is that there are there is when it comes to the virtue of justice, there are two aspects to it. One is justice as it pertains to the morally excellent or the virtuous individual. In other words, what is justice like for Socrates? And then there is a justice in the more common sense of the term. That is how what does it mean to be fair in the dealings with our neighbors when it comes to day-to-day things? Like it's the particulars and not this general sense of justice in this big sphere of what it is to live a good life. And so he creates that demarcation early on. He says there are two types. What they want what Aristotle wants to focus on is the justice as a virtue for a morally excellent person. But Aristotle being Aristotle, he is delivering these lecture series to kings, to princes, to future heads of state. And he wants them to go ahead and create the perfect republic. And so he is also providing uh a way, a very logical way to think of particular justice. Justice as it pertains to a constitution, justice as it pertains to civil law, to criminal law. And so he kind of goes into that a little bit. So when I look at this, just reading it for myself, in my personal opinion, I came to this more from the justice as a virtue concept, and less from justice as a as law from a criminal civil perspective as well. But what I've found is that there's a subset and a superset. And it's it is it is strange that Aristotle views it very differently than I use it, I view it, and maybe that's because I'm a little bit more cynical about the word the way the world is, and I want to see what your thoughts are on this, Jeremy. But what Aristotle says is that the laws, if they are created in a virtuous state, in a philosophical republic, uh by a philosopher king, that means a republic that is that is governed by wisdom, then the laws of that republic are going to be based on virtue. They're going to be this overarching Socratic virtue, justice. And inside of that, there is going to be the fairness element, like how do you distribute grain, how do you uh decide disputes in land, and how do you then deal with um with criminal behavior, things like that. Now, so in in in in aristotle, in in Aristotelian terms, another way to look at this is that if one is following the laws of a philosophical republic, by following those laws, one is meeting the requirements of being a virtuous individual. But when I look at the constitutions and I look at the laws, right, I can tell you that I don't know of a single you know philosophical republic, a republic based on wisdom. I think I think the founding fathers try to create one. And and I think you know, even if you look at what happened in the in in Great Britain and constitutions there on that, I think there's there's an attempt to do so. But it's hard to do in a democracy, which is the I do believe it's the best form of government, but the laws that are created are not based on being a morally excellent or a virtuous individual. So then what ends up happening is that the laws in my mind are a subset to a superset of what it is to be a virtuous individual. What is what is it to be a Socratic individual? What is it to be a philosopher king in one's mind? And that that it becomes the superset, and the laws then become a subset. Um, in my mind, I feel that following the laws is the least thing that you can do if you want to be a decent individual. It's not a high bar to meet, it's a low bar to meet. So I'm gonna pause there. What do you think, Jeremy?

SPEAKER_01 13:56

Yeah, well, I tend to uh wildly agree with you. I I don't think that it exists. I and I think that Aristotle, in his in his attempt to teach others in working with kings and leaders, and in wanting to look at it as you know having more of a societal impact and not just about the individual, right? It it's about how do you all live together in in in a philosophical, morally just world, but that doesn't exist. I mean, as you were saying that, like, okay, well, that sounds like a great utopian society, and uh and it's kind of like a you know a book that's probably been written, you know, or hasn't been written yet, but um, but it's fantasy, it's not reality, and that laws today, I mean, and and I I think that to your point, I think foundationally a lot of constitutions, laws have been created with the foundation of these philosophical beliefs have always been there. You know, it's a lot of politicians have studied that, but then we're so far from that now where you know laws are being we don't want to make this political, but laws are being made there, we're no longer governing. We are actually there's a there's questions of we're making laws around what might be morally right or wrong based on views, viewpoints that you know that are not shared. Um, but it's not about governing anymore. And so these laws, you know, I and I think as we actually if we look back into the previous books within within um Nicomachian ethics, there's these concepts around um you know the other virtues come into play, right? And so, like at the end of the day, being morally virtuous goes much deeper than constitutional laws, the laws of which we need to follow. And so, if and so I would I I I tend to agree with kind of what you were saying, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 16:05

The one of the things that you mentioned is it's very interesting. So, in the in the republic, so the republic is about this morally or virtuously developed constitution, right? And one of the criticisms that Socrates receives while he's delivering this to his interlocutors uh is that okay, you have described this this philosophical constitution, this philosophical republic, and but this doesn't exist anywhere. Can you give me an example of this? And and so Socrates, that is where Plato talks about the forms. You know, there's a the Plato has this um theory of forms, and um and and one of the one of the forms is like it is like the there is a there is a prototypical tree that has all the the qualities, the treiness of that tree comes from that prototypical tree. It doesn't exist anywhere in nature, the perfect tree. But from that, you see trees everywhere. And when you look at a tree, you say, yeah, it looks like a tree because it has the tree in it, and the tree-iness in your mind is of that perfect tree. Since the philosophical republic is kind of like that. The fact that you can you can tell what a republic should be based on that perfect republic doesn't make that perfect republic a figment of your imagination. It it exists just like the perfect tree exists, that's why you can you can you can find trees in nature because of that perfect tree. That's the example that he gives of that. So you can look at this argument both ways that yes, the perfect tree exists, but really does it exist? The perfect republic exists, but does it really exist? And and and the another way to look at it is also that couldn't a perfect tree exist? Yes, it could exist. Similarly, there's no reason why a perfect republic cannot exist. Now, Socrates says perfect republic, where you get billions of people to be philosophical, is impossible to do, but he is using that as an analogy to say that you can one can build a perfect republic inside oneself, a rational individual can do that, and and so that is the attempt there. But Aristotle differs from that. He believes that a perfect republic can be created by a philosopher king who would then impose his will onto his subjects, and and in in the in the republic kind of talks about how a philosopher king would be able to do that through intermediaries and so on and so forth, and and and all of that. So uh all that all that to say that there is a possibility to create a perfect constitution. And I believe the founding fathers here, and then whoever started constitutions elsewhere tried to do that. I think there is an there is a there's an attempt. And what we see as failures are not in fact failures, they're challenges. But but one needs to have like it is a constitution, yes, it is set in stone in a way, but it can be adapted, can be modified, and it can be interpreted. And the interpretation should be the interpretation of it should be more refined as time goes on. As a society, as a culture, we should be morally, virtuously more advanced today than we were back in the day. And in order for that to happen, one has to understand the concepts that our forefathers understood. Like they they read the same books, like the great conversation, these great books was was what they read. There was no like calculus classes or whatever, like you know, it that's not what they that this is this was their foundational education, and based on that, they made decisions. And we are living in a world right now where we we do not learn these things. You you see what I mean? And because of that, we are we are interpreting what they wrote in in bizarre ways that is taking us away from society, from the cot to from the from an eye toward the common good to profit. Right? It's it's changing. There's inequality, there's injustice in the interpretation of the constitution. Just to underscore underscore your point, so the subset and superset here has flipped because of us, because we are not participating in the great conversation in order to improve on what our forefathers left us. What do you think?

SPEAKER_01 21:03

Uh I I uh I love it. I I think that it's actually a uh larger societal challenge that you that you're raising, which is that these books are meant to be studied and learned and um and interpreted and debated. Uh and then are you know the educational system is flawed, and then we're moving further and further away from this. Um, and as you start to read, I think the uh book one of the 52 books in the great conversation, there's an editorial around uh around education. Um and and specifically saying, I and this is that editorial might be 70 years old. Uh, I think it was in the 1950s that that was written. And it was saying then we've moved away from this that you know, uh college education is a liberal arts education, should be these books should be included in that. And so, unless you're a philosophy major, you're not reading them. And even if you are a philosophy major, and I'm not I can't speak to it directly, but uh, my guess is you're not going through all 52 books in in four years, and if that's even possible. But I mean, some of these books like Shakespeare is still taught, right? I mean, you know, but if you if you're into English lit, maybe you're reading Kant or Dante, right?

unknown 22:22

But

SPEAKER_00 22:24

Yeah, but reading alone is like drinking alone. I think it's it's that there is a debate that needs to happen, and there is a certain amount of practical wisdom one needs to have to understand what those words mean. Like, you know, I could read, can't, to pass an exam. Yeah, it's very different from understanding, you know, what does it mean to what does a categorical imperative actually mean, and so on and so forth. Now, again, I don't, I'm not talking about armchair philosophers here, right? I don't think our founding fathers were armchair philosophers. I mean, these these guys were riding horses and in in waging wars, and they were living, breathing the the times, right? We are nowhere as morally worthy as they were, like they were men of action. No, and but but they had the they had the philosophical foundation. We neither are we men of action, we like to believe we are, and we don't have the philosophical foundation. You see, that's what resiliency dance is about, right? You have it's about the foundations of your moral obligation. If you are gonna go out there in the world and you're gonna move things around and intervene, you better understand what the underpinnings of that are. Who are you? What is driving your decisions, right? So, anyways, I get super preachy and I'm gonna take a step back. But this is a very good question. This comes up, uh Jeremy. One of the questions that comes up, which Aristotle poses in this, is how then do you educate a good citizen? And how is that different from educating a good individual? You see the difference because he says this that um perhaps it is not the same to be a good man and a good citizen of any state taken at random. There's a difference in being a good man and a good citizen of any state taken at random. Exactly. Yeah, exactly. Look, Nelson Mandela was not a good citizen of appetite South Africa, but he was a great man. Mahatma Gandhi was not a good citizen of colonial British times, but he was a great man. You you see what I mean? Same thing's true for Martin Luther King. My my point is that there is a difference in the education of these two people. Our education system today is about how do you be a good citizen by following the laws, pay your taxes, and all of that stuff. Right? But how do you become a morally excellent person who's gonna stand up against injustice, do the right thing, participate in the common good? Right, because it's not against the law to not be generous with your time, to not volunteer your time, to to to it it's not against the law to to not be charitable.

SPEAKER_01 25:33

Yeah, I mean there's a few concepts there, right? One is is being a good person in an unjust society, right? Where the constitution and laws, there are laws in place that might be protecting and keep the laws aren't necessarily just.

SPEAKER_00 25:57

That's right. The laws are are for the powerful, right? They serve the ideas or they serve the interests of the few. In an oligarchy, it is the wealthy, right? Right? In in in in in a democracy, it is the the people who have the most power. Right.

SPEAKER_01 26:17

Versus uh citizens, right? I mean, if the citizens were the ones unanimously creating the democracy, in a democracy, it should be it should be the people, but that's not what ends up happening.

SPEAKER_00 26:28

What's in the what ends up happening in a democracy, it is people who have status. Right. Like literally, you can you can have actors become politicians just based on the fact that they're popular, like Reagan, does yeah, I that you know, I it just it blows my mind.

SPEAKER_01 26:45

Yeah. Clint Eastwood, Schwarzenegger, yeah, the other wrestler, uh, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 26:53

So so those laws, laws that are are look, you create a constitution and then you you have you have lawyers out the wadzu, and they can then interpret those laws. And then, and who are the lawyers working for? They're not working for the people. I mean, the the the wealthy can afford the legal system to modify the legal system, right? The people with status, the people with power, the people with money, so it's no longer serving the common good. No, so then in that situation, you know, the the the virtuous, the the Socrates, the Nelson Mandela, the the Mar Pagandhi, the Martin Ludwig king of the world, are no longer following the law because the law is unjust. It comes back to the subset-superset theory. Right? So then how does one how do you educate someone to be a good individual, a good human being? You see, I think that's where these conversations come in.

SPEAKER_01 28:06

It's teaching so much more than memorizing the laws and understanding what what we're told is good and bad, or I go to jail, I don't go to jail. It's very the laws the way they're way we live is black and white. Yes. Not going into to your point that might not be morally just. So how do you how do you create a morally just person? Um how do you educate them on that? I think it's too I mean re reflection on you know, of course, like what we're talking about, the the reads, but it's a good question.

SPEAKER_00 28:56

I don't know how you would answer it. Like I I don't have an answer, I do so the the republic talks about it. You know, the the republic talks about the education of uh the the the virtuous human being. How do you create the philosopher king? And all of that is just how does one educate oneself? It's a it's a completely introspective act. Like, you know, it on our logo, the mirror there is introspection. You got to look at oneself, and all of what's in the in the republic is an introspective act. And from from the kind of from from what kind of social media you're listening to. I mean, literally, like back he he speaks about the kind of music you would listen to, the kind of books that you would read. I mean, this is the same kind of stuff that we are exposed to today. What kind of humor you should participate in. Um, and but the big takeaway for me from the republic was one has to act in the world and act voluntarily. That means one is not being just led astray by convention, by appetites. What I mean by appetites is like you know, emotional or lizard brain kind of thinking. You know, one is rationally thinking before they act, and one is not wise when one starts off in that course. But one says, I'm gonna A B test this, I'm gonna try this and see what happens, and I'm gonna learn from it, and I'm gonna, and so it is thought, action, and reflection. You're absolutely right. That's what that's what you just said thought, action, and reflection. But you could do thought, action, and reflection without having a model, any sort of underpinning, right? Or having any sort of an understanding of where you should start first, and that's what most of us do. We follow convention. The easiest thing to do is do what the world is telling you to do.

SPEAKER_01 30:39

Yeah, yeah. It it reminds me of an exercise and like like teaching ethics or going through an ethics class and being taught scenarios, right? Scenarios is a great way to reflect on things, right? Dilemmas, right? Yeah, the poor husband, wife, the wife is sick and dying, and you can't afford the medicine, but you know where the medicine is, and you can go and steal the medicine, right? And therefore, then save your wife. I mean, this is a type of question where you're starting to talk about well, what is right and wrong in this type of scenario, right? Um, or you know, do you put food on the table versus buying the medicine? So um fantastic, fantastic.

SPEAKER_00 31:31

Those are dilemmas, but I'll tell you a lot of people look at those dilemmas, and there is there's a reason why one cannot really argue their point. I could, you know, there's the whole trolley experiment and all of this, right? One's one can state an opinion and you could change your opinion tomorrow because one doesn't have the philosophical underpinning, one is not seen as much in life to be able to actually give an answer. No, and the dilemma is that there's no right answer, really. But what I mean to say is that there is, in fact, a virtuous answer there, but at least you have given it thought. You you you've seen what great minds have said about it before, and you could you could say, okay, you know, fine, I don't know the answer, but this is what Socrates would have done. And so, you know what? All things considered, if I'm not smart enough, I'm gonna follow somebody who is, right? And you know, like the three types of people, like I Aristotle starts Nekomarkian ethics saying this, there are three types of people, those who know, those who know that they don't know and are willing to learn from those who know. The third group is they don't know that they don't know, and they're unwilling to learn. I mean, I spend most of my life really in that third group. You're unwilling to learn. I didn't even know that I didn't know. I thought I was a cardiologist and all of that stuff, so you know, I'm sure I know. I mean, the world tells me, I know. People come to me from all over the place saying, you know, help me, and so you know, but I don't know. I didn't know what happiness was, I don't know what justice was. I don't understand the difference between the law and and the justice in the law and the justice in virtue. And honestly, I didn't come upon these facts on my own. I I heard Plato, and then I mean I read Plato and I'm reading Aristotle. That's how I know I'm I'm learning. I'm in the second group. Thankfully, I'm in that second group. I think that's the that's a great group to be in. I think the the first group is not for mere mortals. Um you brought up a very good point, Jeremy, which I wanted to say. The second question here is exactly what you brought up, and I think that's an important question. So the first question that we pose, and I think we'll come back to it, is what is there a difference between just following the laws and and actually being a virtually excellent person? Uh, and what's that? And then and the second one here is uh is there a difference in injustice or the unjust person? The unjust person who does a wicked act for profit versus an unjust person who basically breaks the law out of an act of passion. What is worse? Right. So so to before I go there, let me just give you the the way Aristotle lays this down is he says that there are like I said, there are two types of justice. One is this this morally excellent person. Like what is what does justice mean to Socrates, right? In in the in overarching scheme of everything. And then there is justice as it deals with the particulars. The particulars as to how the con if you're a citizen in a constitution, between two citizens, how are the goods, the good things in the constitution distributed? Food, education, security, housing, how is that distributed amongst citizens in a constitution? Then in interactions between two individuals, there are those interactions that are voluntary interactions where I get into a business with you. And then how then should the profits of that business or the losses of that business be distributed amongst you and me? And then there are there are others that are involuntary. Involuntary means that you and me didn't have any sort of an agreement to participate, but I decided to rob or cheat you, right? You are an unwilling participant in that, so that is a non-violent, involuntary injustice that I've done. Or you decided to beat me up or murder me, and that's a without me obviously agreeing to it, which is which is a what which is an involuntary, unjust act that is violent. So again, to just take take along, there's a there's a there's a virtue of justice, and then in that that's one side, then the on the transactional side, there's a constitutional justice, and then there's a civil justice and a criminal justice. Right now, and one way to look at this thing is we are we're gonna set aside to answer your question, right, regarding this person whose wife is sick and is going out to deciding whether they should steal a medicine to save her life or let her die because they don't want to steal. Right? For that, we are gonna take away this morally or this virtuous justice piece. We're not asking what will Socrates do in that situation. We are looking at it from a constitutional perspective, right? From a from a civil perspective, from a criminal perspective. Okay. So I'm gonna give you my opinion. I want to see what your thoughts are on it, right? Now, now from a constitutional perspective, right? If this person is a citizen of a country and his and his wife is sick, she is a citizen of that country and she is sick, right? Um is it just that there is a person who is who's who is a citizen of a constitution, does not have access to healthcare and has to then rely on taking things into their own hands in order to provide life-saving medication with somebody. That's that's constitutional justice. Someone would say, What if this person was not a taxpayer? And there's another person who's paid their taxes, paid their dues, has has government-sponsored you know healthcare is Medicare for themselves. And this other person never chose to you know participate in uh in paying their taxes. And so that so then this person, what someone could say then this person doesn't deserve healthcare because they didn't contribute to society. And another way to look at this is someone is saying that one is more meritorious compared to the other. The person who actually participated in in paying their taxes in in contributing to the constitution is more meritorious than somebody who's who's not and hence deserves more of the goods, the goods here being healthcare. What would you say about that?

SPEAKER_01 38:18

When you say meritorious meritorious, you mean so we're now we're talking about merit. So if I pay in, I've I've earned that right.

SPEAKER_00 38:26

Um you could blow it up. Like, you know, I use merit here, which is a strange way of saying that if you pay your taxes, you're a meritorious person, which actually doesn't mean that. I mean, most people who are really highly stationed in the United States don't pay any tax. But I can tell you those people are not wanting for healthcare.

SPEAKER_01 38:44

That's right. Yeah. So they're certainly also benefiting in other ways.

SPEAKER_00 38:48

Absolutely. I mean, let me let me put it this way like, do you think the Koch brothers, you know, would have to be wanting in this, would be ever in this situation where their wife needs medicine?

SPEAKER_02 38:56

No.

unknown 38:56

No.

SPEAKER_00 38:57

So so then so then tell me then, like, would you do what do you what would you have to say about that? That there is, in fact, I'm sure that this is in fact something that is happening in this country today, that there is somebody at who is who has a loved one, that loved one needs a something life-saving, and they're and they're contemplating whether they should break the law to get it, as opposed to there's somebody out there who has never have to even think about this. And they live in the same country, governed by the same laws. What would you say? Should it be based on merit?

SPEAKER_01 39:29

Should it be based on merit? Yeah, I no, I think there should be, I mean, I think there should be when it comes to life and death, I think that there should be a baseline. And I think that there's another, there's a there's another way to look at this that's not really ever considered, which is what about the pharmacist? Pharmacist has access to the drug and can give it to the person in need knowing that they can't afford it. They themselves then are also breaking the law, yeah. But they're doing the just they're doing the morally correct thing, but they are now unjust for doing it, or not necessarily. So in so coming back to like the definitions of just versus unjust, in unjust because you're you're you're taking from someone else, or unjust because you're doing something that you know, I'm not gonna how would you define the other unjust there?

SPEAKER_00 40:33

That's if we take away this morally virtuous person from the equation and only talk about the laws of the land, if the pharmacist hands the medication to somebody for free, like they work at Walgreens or whatever, right? They just take a medication and just hand it to this person, say you know what, don't worry about it. They would have broken a law, several laws, as a matter of fact. And they would be, they could be, they could lose their license, or worse, put behind bars. I don't know what kind of medication it was. Um obviously they would be fired, you know. That goes without saying, um, so from a legal perspective, that goes to show that one could be virtuous and unlawful if the laws are not virtuous laws, right?

SPEAKER_01 41:31

Yeah, I mean, I you you mentioned this, we we shouldn't necessarily say, well, what would Socrates do? But in this scenario, I think we know what Socrates would do.

SPEAKER_00 41:39

Correct, but but we we have to take that out of the equation because that that is a very high bar to set. Right. And we hear about situations like this where someone decided to break the law to do the right thing, and it goes one, you know, it goes both ways. Sometimes it's just that the crowds are fickle, right? This is not about what does social media have to say about this person. Most people would say would support the pharmacist. There'll be a go fund me page that will give this person money, and all of those things would happen. But for each of those people who actually does the virtuous thing in the moment, there are several hundreds of thousands of us who will follow the rule of the law, saying that's the right thing to do. I cannot give you a medication like that, man. What if you I get sued? You see what I mean?

SPEAKER_01 42:30

Yeah, yeah, and and I think that yeah, I I you know where I land on it, I think at the end of the day, would be there are laws that we should all follow. And on your day-to-day basis, you should be just and following, like you should be a just person by following those laws. Um but you you mentioned this earlier, like laws should be examined. Laws fit into a larger system. That system needs to be able to work. The laws need to work for the system, right? That we that we all live in, that we're all experiencing. And in these scenarios, you this is where we're getting to, where there the laws are unjust.

SPEAKER_00 43:22

The laws are unjust in some situations, absolutely.

SPEAKER_01 43:24

And therefore, are people really unjust or morally wrong for doing what is right? And I'm gonna say that I have an opinion on that. And that you know, laws are meant to be questioned, but I've lived my life that way where rules are meant to be questioned, and not everyone, not I know that I do not that other people do not share that belief. And I'm not saying that a stop sign is a suggestion, right? That is there to protect us, ourselves and others, that is, for us as a community to have some structure so that we're all safe. That's different than laws that are set up that are not actually equitable across if if it's merit based, then I'm not that it's not equitable, right? That's based on like if I have status, if I'm the Koch brothers, I can do whatever I want. Right, you know, and I'm never going to be in a situation where that's going to be a problem. But what about the millions of people that it is a problem for? So clearly the laws, and I'm not saying that you go and steal and break break the law, and say that you have to actually get back to the systemic issue of the laws are set up in a way where the structure is, maybe it's not laws, maybe it's a structure of the society we're living in, isn't a morally just society, and therefore there is no equity, and therefore people are then pushed to make these types of decisions.

SPEAKER_00 44:58

Absolutely. So then so then it comes back to the other part of this question. Like so, if if yes, so one is you're following the law, but what but the other is if when you're breaking the law, if one is breaking the law for one's own gain, as opposed to one is breaking the law out of an act of passion, which is worse. So this is a bit nuanced, but the way to look at this is that the way society functions for the most part, we look at acts of passion. If someone is angry and then in that act of passion ends up committing a crime, it's very scary for people because it's almost like you know, there's an animal instinct that took over. There's no control for this. This person lost their rational mind, like that, you know, they couldn't in that moment they ended up doing something that makes them a dangerous individual because they could do it again. A lot of that, I don't know how much of that is free will or not. A lot of people like to ascribe blame to the individual for that. But there are lots of reasons why someone flies off the handle. And a lot of those things are not necessarily under one's control. I think most people want to be good people. And there are things that come along the way. Like, you know, just like how we spoke about the non-cardinal virtues of irrascibility and good temper, being somebody who's choleric, who just gets really angry very quickly, is not necessarily a choice. They are born that way. There is a quirk that in their personality that makes them that way. Everybody would like to be the likable, funny, happy person. It's just not everybody has that op that that disposition. So and we know now some of it is generic, some of it is social, some of it is there's so many things that that lead to it. So that act of passion is what is is what gets is on the front page of everything of the newspapers, and that's what worries us. Like, you know, what if our neighbor is a psycho? That kind of thing, right? I'll tell you what is more dangerous in my mind is a person who is rational with a very cool mind, thinks about what is good and evil, and chooses evil for their own gain. That bond villain types, and the world is full of bond villains who are walking around absolutely scot-free in society. And not only that, they are lauded and they are giving lectures and they are and they are and they have buildings named after them just for gain. Like if in your in this example that you gave, the man who breaks uh in you know through a car window, steals medication, and runs home to gives it to his wife would be in in in the press in everywhere else. You know, that that would be the it would be sensational. Saying, like, you know, this person broke into a a car and stole this or whatever. I'm just giving an example, or broke into a pharmacy, broke into a pharmacy and stole the thing at gunpoint and and you know, whatever, as opposed to the the fact that pharma companies make millions on life-saving medications, which they could definitely reduce the price for and provide it to people. Um and and and they and they make millions in profit doing that. That is, you know, yes, we understand that that's a wrong thing, but there's but you there's no place to put that. Where do you put that? You say, Oh, that's the world, the world turns like that. The the the the poor the individual who does commits this the the act gets shredded by the law, but the law then gets modified in a way that one can can do wicked acts for gain. And look, pharma company is just one example, it's an easy target, but from from oil companies to I mean, name name your you know, company, like what was the one that uh put all the chemicals in the in the um DuPont? DuPont right uh the Enron. I mean all of these places, like if it who went to jail, right? How sensationalized were people?

SPEAKER_01 49:36

Yeah, well it gets to a different question that we we actually you know it might be worth exploring on a different one, but like Enron executives being told or or knowing what they were doing, and yet um were are they the leader, the person empowered, or those who are following them that are doing it an act because they were told to versus something that they would choose to do on their own, like knowingly doing it versus saying, Well, I but I was told to do this, right? You know, and um and we get into all sorts of examples over time. It's like well, I think great the great examples that we read about here in in the command that like the soldier who is told to do something unjust, right? But but he he is supposed to be following the laws or the commands of of their leader, right? So there's that challenge. There's also the idea that we're you know, the the concept, the the example we're using of the the husband who skills medicine, like that's a that's potentially a one-time thing, right? So is he then a morally unjust person having done something like this versus you know is a one-time event? We have you you bring up the idea of passion. You there are laws still, I think, in in certain states where uh murder out of you know, murder-based passion-based murders is not you know, is not the same as murdering someone in cold blood, or right? I mean, that's you know, if you find your spouse cheating on you in bed and you shoot them both, that's not the same type of crime. It's not you're not someone who you the way in which you you know you describe someone who is rational but thoughtful on what exactly they're doing that's wrong, that's intentionality around it, versus the person who walks home, you know, living what they think is a just life, and then they come on to something and they lose it completely, and versus the the last example that I'll give then, which is the example that we were talking about offline, it is this Batman.

SPEAKER_00 52:05

Right, right, yeah, right.

SPEAKER_01 52:07

So the Dark Knight is imposing justice on criminals, yet he is not doing it within the confines of law, and you know, Gotham police are constantly looking for him as well as the joker and you know all the others. So is he is he just? Is he morally you know leading a good life? He also happens to have millions and millions, and of course, you know, he donates to orphanages, you know, orphanages and all sorts of things, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 52:46

Yeah, is he a good guy or a bad guy, right? And depends upon which side of the equation you're on. There are cops who think he's a bad guy, right? And you know, you as the reader have to kind of decide for yourself. And most of the times I've not heard anybody say that Batman is the anti-hero. Right, right. I've never heard that. No, but you know, we I think a lot of these things are there is this some of this is fairly intuitive, like you can come upon this, but in your one's own life, one finds that if one doesn't reflect on this and look at what one is doing in their life, it it's it's easier to read a comic and in a structured story and then see who the good guy is. And and and sometimes it's very easy to conflate oneself and say that you know what I'm the good guy, but one has to really measure their actions, and that's why the the thought, action, and reflection is extremely important. And and hopefully, you know, going through some of these pages, one can actually ask oneself that how am I a morally excellent individual? Am I just following the law, just get getting by? We've we've created such a low bar to what a good human being is. A good human being is someone who pays his taxes and doesn't steal from his neighbor and you know things like that. No, and that is that is enough. Um, and I I think we should hold ourselves to a better standard. If we keep going down this road, then then we'll be where we are in a hyper-consumer-driven social media watching, you know, people will be saying, Oh, I'm a good person, you know, I'm not causing anybody any harm. So, how come how you know why am I a bad person? I get that. That I think that is important. Like, you cannot be look, not everybody can be bad man, like you're not going kicking people's asses in order for you to be a good person, like you're not being vigilante on the street, but being good to your neighbor is the least thing that you can do. Or actually, take that back. Not doing bad to your not harming your neighbor is the least you can do, right? Not harm your neighbor, doing good is a higher bar, and then doing good to somebody who's not related to you in any way is not your neighbor, is an even higher bar. Yeah, yeah, you see what I mean? I'm getting pretty good.

SPEAKER_01 54:54

I do, and so I think that that I mean it's great, and I think that this conversation might have just spun listeners around in circles to then realize well, what is the answer? And I think it it's a there isn't a clear, simple answer to this. Um, but I think it does come back then to the larger question that we started with as kind of a way to reflect on this as you leave. Yeah, you want to restate that question again?

SPEAKER_00 55:25

Yeah, so the question was is there a difference in being a morally excellent person versus somebody who's just following the law? Is there a difference in those two? And I think our opinion is that yes, yes, there is, yeah, the in in that one should strive to be a morally excellent individual. And and I think the steps along the way is I think the first thing is do no harm. I completely agree. Do no harm, like don't harm anybody, don't be an asshole, you know. The next the next step of the process then is try to be good to some to to people, at least people in your sphere, in your community, if possible, then expand that beyond your community and go beyond and participate in a bigger way. But this action, but each time when we take a step, one should uh uh understand where they are, um understand the decisions, the choices they are making, and then go back and and revisit and see the consequences of that action. And each and for each of us who's who's who who's taking those steps, one needs to have some sort of foundation, one some sort of model underpinning.

SPEAKER_01 56:42

And the art of reflection there is key. I mean, you just kind of laid out multiple steps of reflecting on your actions. And do we really spend time reflecting on things we've done? It might be that you do something wrong and you spend a lot of time reflecting on that. Right. Um, I I can say I work with a lot of people who spend a lot of time reflecting on how they are perceived in the world by others without actually thinking about you know, realizing that everyone else is thinking the same. And uh no one's actually thinking about you, you're they're thinking about themselves too, and um, and one interaction comes and goes. Um so you have to look at the bigger picture there too of all of your actions, not just one.

SPEAKER_00 57:32

Absolutely, absolutely. Well, I think you're right. We have come to the end of this uh episode.

SPEAKER_01 57:39

Yeah, so uh thank you for listening. And um, you know, if you like us, share it. If you like the episode, share it. Uh give us a rating. And if you didn't, uh send us a message and let us know why so we can uh we can improve.

SPEAKER_00 57:53

Absolutely. Thank you so much, everybody. And uh thanks, Jeremy.

SPEAKER_01 57:56

All right, thanks, Nish.

SPEAKER_00 57:58

Bye.

unknown 57:59

Bye.