In Meno, Meno and Socrates are discussing Virtue and attempting to develop a definition of what Virtue is. At one point in the dialogue Meno states that Virtue is “desiring fine things and being able to acquire them” Baird and Kaufmann, 156). In their attempts to analyze this definition they discuss evil, what it is and whether or not it is ever desired by people. I will use this discussion to answer the beginning question from Plato’s perspective and show that, through Socrates and Meno, Plato demonstrates that evil is a form of ignorance, and as we know from Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, ignorance is one of the most damaging states a human can exist in. In On Free Will, Augustine comes to a very similar conclusion.
According to Socrates, the difference between a “true” lie and a lie in words is that a lie in words is apparent while a true lie is real. When a true lie is concerned, a person’s whole character is oriented to a world that doesn’t exist. The character’s soul can be changed for evil. Meanwhile, a lie in words is the noble lie. Socrates says, “But surely, as I was saying just now, it would be most correct to say that it is truly speaking a lie-- the ignorance in the soul of the one to whom the lie was told.
The text titled Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism written by Sextus lets us dive into the philosophical idea surrounding skepticism. Throughout this text, the main idea behind the author 's reasons for thinking what he does will be explored, more specifically surrounding the idea that he states "So the sceptics hoped to achieve serenity by coming to a decision about the capriciousness of the objects of experience and of thought; but since they could not do this, they suspended judgment. By fate, serenity followed for those who suspended judgment, just as the shadow follows the body." (Sextus, p.5). The point that Sextus has made within this quote is that those who do not judge will achieve peace, and that nothing is really ever known beyond the realm of experience.
His definition equivocates knowledge and courage itself, rather than saying knowledge is necessary for courage. However, knowledge is not the only necessary condition for courage in his definition. Thus, the particulars of fearful and hopeful become problematic for Socrates. As Socrates points out through further questioning if one were to have such knowledge as stated by Nicias - one would have knowledge of all virtues, “of practically all goods and evils put together” (199d1). The elenctic method draws out contradictions in Nicias beliefs, leading again to a conflicted answer.
Furthermore, Socrates uses Miletus statement in gods since both believe in daimonia consequently; the allegation of impiety holds no water (27a-d). Socrates arguments in his defense are effective due to the fact that he exposed the real corrupters of Athens youth. Socrates continues with the questioning of Meletus, he makes a point about corruption. He says that “if one, associates with corrupt people; then this corruption will eventually spread and you yourself will become corrupt”. So if you are corrupting the very people that you associate with, then eventually you will also become corrupt.
According to Socrates, a virtuous person should plot any means to see that an enemy does not appear in front of a justice system when he or she finds out that that enemy has erred. Callicles wonders at the concept of morality being championed by Socrates and wonders if he is joking. In sum, this dialogue tries to give different implications of body politic and sciences, in which Socrates argues that science corrupts the politics and that science should be eliminated in order for politics to remain immoral. Latour comes with a critique of these Socrates suppositions mentioning that currently, science has been immortalized by
In addition, he states a good man would not allow himself to be executed without a fight or attempt to save himself. Also, he is causing shame to all of his friends. Furthermore, he is bringing more shame because he has the ability to escape but does not. Lastly, everything that occurred was unjust and should not have taken place. However, Socrates is not convinces because he needs to be guided by reason.
If morals are based on emotions then people who lack strong emotions must be blind to morality. This was explained by James Blair (cited in Prinz, 2011), with his psychological researches on psychopaths. Psychopaths see moral rules as mere orders because they are emotionally blind and they lack emotional attitudes. While cultures may differ on what behaviors are good or bad, the general moral emotion of feeling good or bad about behavior is universal. Bio-cultural Evolutionary model explains moral sense as a moral feeling or emotion generated by actions.
You don 't need to make huge changes to eat healthier. And you don 't have to change your habits all at the same time. It 's best to set small goals and change your habits a little bit at a time. Over time, small changes can make a significant difference in your health. Discussion: How can you change your eating habits?
Much of Socrates’ ethics was built around this concept, which led to his ethical code becoming basically objective. Socrates’ ethics were based on something of a knowledge/ignorance dichotomy. He believed that people act immorally but they do not act this way intentionally. Like all animals, Socrates believed that we act in and seek out what is in our best interests. If a person knows what is ‘good’, then their manner of behaviour will always be good, as they possess the knowledge of how to do so.