Protagoras was a philosopher and teacher in ancient Greece in
mid 5th century BC. A young man named Euathlus came to him to learn
law and rhetoric. He entered into an arrangement with Protagoras that he would
pay his fees once he won his first legal case. Protagoras normally took his
fees before starting the course. However seeing how keen and bright Euathlus
was, he agreed to it.
After the completion of the course, Euathlus started his
practice but did not show much eagerness to win a case. Thus, he avoided paying
the fees to Protagoras for many years. Protagoras decided to sue Euathlus. He argued, “If I win
the case, I will get my money from you. If I lose, you will still have to pay
as you have won your first case.”
Euathlus was cleaver. He countered, “If I lose, then I do not
have to pay you as stipulated in our original contract. However, if I win then
by the judgement of the court I am not obliged to pay you.”
This is Protagoras Paradox. One can lose but still win! In
addition, it seems true for both the plaintiff and the defendant.
The problem arose here because none of them was being honest.
They were using morality and legality as separate attributes and using one or
the other, as it suited them. When the court ordered in their favour, they
forgot their moral contract and when courts ruled against them, they clung to
the moral contract conveniently ignoring the legal judgement.
In a democracy, the people have to hand over an immense power
and control to elected individuals. For democracy to succeed and flourish these
elected representatives have to be trustworthy and that they will have to be
honest. Honesty does not mean mere compliance with the legal
framework of the land or moral edicts.
Many a leaders
now, when caught in a scandal, justify their action on the ground of one or the
other. They proclaim themselves right on legal or moral grounds as it suits
them.
The daughter in law of a defense minister of a country was
paid a certain sum of money from an arms manufacturer who signed a huge
contract to supply armoured tanks. A major national newspaper published this
accusing the minister for bribery and calling him dishonest. The minister said
that neither he nor his daughter in law has done anything illegal. The
manufacturer has just paid her for the liaison services that she had provided.
He sued the newspaper and won a large compensation.
Even though he was morally wrong, he justified himself
legally. The paper was legally wrong but justified itself morally. This is Protagoras Paradox. It would not have existed if both the parties were honest.
In public life or even in personal life, whom will you trust
implicitly: a person who does not do anything illegal but morally his dealings may sometimes be
dubious or a person who has high moral standards but may not always be on the
right side of the law?
If you look closely, you will find both types of people in
your personal and public spheres. I believe people from either camp can be trustworthy and honest. Honesty does not depend on whether one is able to
justify his actions legally or morally or even both. I will trust a person
implicitly who tells the truth, the truth that he himself believes to be true. Moral
and legal rationalization will come into play later when judging the consequence
of his action.
“In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of
others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.” — Immanuel
Kant, (1724-1804)
"Ah, if only the world was perfect!" -- Me
No comments:
Post a Comment