'To what are you referring ?' I will endeavour to explain.

All are agreed that justice is honourable, whether in men or things, and no one who maintains that a very ugly men who is just, is in his mind fair, would be thought extravagant.

'Very true.' But if honour is to be attributed to justice, are just sufferings honourable, or only just actions?
'What do you mean ?' Our laws supply a case in point; for we enacted that the robber of temples and the traitor should die; and this was just, but the reverse of honourable.

In this way does the language of the many rend asunder the just and honourable.
'That is true.' But is our own language consistent?
I have already said that the evil are involuntarily evil; and the evil are the unjust.

Now the voluntary cannot be the involuntary; and if you two come to me and say, 'Then shall we legislate for our city ?' Of course, I shall reply.--'Then will you distinguish what crimes are voluntary and what involuntary, and shall we impose lighter penalties on the latter, and heavier on the former?
Or shall we refuse to determine what is the meaning of voluntary and involuntary, and maintain that our words have come down from heaven, and that they should be at once embodied in a law ?' All states legislate under the idea that there are two classes of actions, the voluntary and the involuntary, but there is great confusion about them in the minds of men; and the law can never act unless they are distinguished.