Dictionary.com gives the following definition of fair:
| 1. | free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge. |
| 2. | legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight. |
...and this definition of steal:
| 1. | to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. |
| 2. | to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment. |
Unfortunately, these definitions are quite vague in and of themselves, which is not very helpful in helping to define the issues at hand. The definitions themselves rely on the 'right' to do something, 'the rules', and the concept of 'justice', which are all subjective terms that may change from person to person and situation to situation. Clearly, the dictionary has not gotten us any further in trying to elucidate this perplexing situation.
Perhaps a different approach is in order. Let's consider philosophy instead. The idea of 'justice' has been around for thousands of years, dating back to the first civilizations which chose to implement laws. Going back to ancient Greece, Plato was one of the first philosophers to write about justice as an overarching virtue of individuals and moral ethics has been one of the major areas of philosophical debate ever since.
Taking the views of generations of philosophers into account, how do the ideas of stealing and fairness as applied to the Lenz vs Universal case look when viewed in the context of general morality? But since philosophy is never simple or quick (and it's snowing and Monday classes have been canceled), I shall take my time to ponder and ruminate upon this issue and post again once I have reached a conclusion that would make Plato and Aristotle proud. Stay tuned...
No comments:
Post a Comment