I find it curious that they would argue nothing is naturally and intrinsically just, or honourable or disgraceful; but things are considered so because of law and fashion(custom). Is this the case or can a case be made that it is good to help a person in need regardless of custom? Or do is it the case that what we consider good are so just by custom?
I however agree with them that both the poor man and the rich man experience pleasure in the same way, that is, wealth or poverty have no bearing on the sensation of pleasure.
I think, our criminal justice systems would have served us all better if it was grounded on the basis that errors ought to meet with pardon, for men err not intentionally but from external circumstances or influences and that is best to teach one who has erred than to hate him.
And finally, since the wise man’s country is the world it is prudent not to expose oneself to danger for the sake of country.
Which do you disagree with?