Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
A debate over good and evil
Law vs moral nature
A debate over good and evil
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: A debate over good and evil
Ignorance is Not an Excuse
We only choose what we think is good and
if anyone chooses evil it must be through ignorance.
Plato believes that we always choose good unless we are ignorant. Plato claims being ignorant would be the only excuse for choosing evil. His views of this are apparent in the Meno. As I read up on whether or not we deliberately choose evil I realized there are many sides, many ways to answer this question. My opinion is not as clear as I thought. In this paper I will go through numerous writings on this subject, such as the Meno. The writings by Augustine and Descartes basically support Plato's argument. While comparing all the writings I hope that I can come up with a conclusion of my own.
During the conversation between Meno and Socrates Socrates urges Meno, through his method of asking questions, that nobody really desires evil. At the beginning Meno believes people do desire good and evil. Socrates says to Meno, that to desire an evil is to desire harm and misery. Meno eventually admits that no one desires evil because no one would ever desire harm or misery. They come to this conclusion, but they make sure to point out that ignorant people can still desire evil because they believe the evils to be good. This still goes along with their belief; no one truly desires what they know to be an evil (Pojman 67).
Overall, I think Socrates and Meno come to this conclusion very rationally. I would agree that anyone who does not desire harm or misery would not choose evil unless they are ignorant and do not really know it is evil. On the other hand I do believe there are some horrible people who do desire harm or misery. Unfortunately, we know in our world today that people choose to...
... middle of paper ...
...forgetfulness, of its prior), and so evil is remedied by the soul's experiences of love" (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/plotinus/htm). I find this to be so beautiful and truthful. After all my reading and contemplating over what I believe, this is it. People choose evil because they have forgotten what they have learned, what they know to be right. Somewhere along the way they have lost their morals they need for deciding between good and evil. This does not mean they don't know it's evil, they do. They are for some reason not choosing to listen to the little voice in their head telling them not to choose the evil. Plotinus and I believe that through love from an outside source they can remember. They can recall their misplaced desire for good and evil. Maybe this is too much of a dreamer's view, but I always like to look at the bright side of things.
The lines that define good and evil are not written in black and white; these lines tend to blur allowing good and evil to intermingle with each another in a single human being.
Right after Socrates comments how they can both look for virtue, Meno gives him these questions: “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is? How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing you did not know (80d)?” This is Meno’s paradox which explains the discovery of knowledge is impossible and if you do not know what you are learning, and that you cannot discover it either. Meno states in his first premise that you either know what knowledge is or you don’t, and whether you do know it or not, you cannot discover what that piece of knowledge is. This,
In order to demonstrate my argument, it is better to first have an understanding of what knowledge, and correct opinion are, respectively. In the Meno, Socrates argues that “true opinion is no way a worse guide for correct action than knowledge” (Plato 89). To some extent, both correct opinion and knowledge are beneficial to people, because both of them could lead people to success, i.e. “correct action”. Hence correct opinion is as useful as knowledge. In the Meno, Meno has difficulties understanding why “knowledge is prized far more highly than right opinion”, and Socrates explains by illustrating the difference between these two ideas. He argues that correct opinion does not “remain long”, and does not “worth much until one ties them down by [giving] an account of reason why” (Plato 90). Correct opinion, in this sense is not stationary, and it only transforms to knowledge by rec...
verses evil, the monster is meant to be evil but we as the reader feel
There are two kinds of evil, moral and natural. Moral evil is things like murder, rape, stealing, terrorism, etc. Natural evil is things like suffering and unpleasantness typically as a result of moral evil. Evil is that which has no power of its own. Evil is darkness, a negation of light. Its power is in us, in our fear of it, in that we consider it a "something" worth responding to.
“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.” (Eleanor Roosevelt). This is just one of the infinite examples of how human nature has been explored by so many different people. Each and every human is born with the capability of making their own choices. The decisions that they will make in the future will determine how evil they are viewed by others. Although one’s nature and nurture do affect their life, it is their own free will that determines whether or not they are evil.
Plato's readers namely, since no one wants bad things to happen to them, why do
I believe that man, by nature, is neither good nor evil. When a child comes out of its mother, one cannot tell whether or not that child will be a serial killer or win the Nobel Peace prize. A child’s environment is what forms it to be the adult that it will be one day. I believe that it also what one believes that makes him or her what that person will be one day. Machiavelli believed however that man was naturally an evil being, one that needed control (Prince).
The paradox arises due to a number of assumptions concerning knowledge, inquiry and definition made by both Socrates and Meno. The assumptions of Socrates are:
Evil is to be morally wrong, bad, wicked, and a whole bunch of other synonyms that all boil into one pot. There is so much to this word that it’s almost impossible to pinpoint someone as truly evil. To be evil for no other reason than to be evil would be the worst possible evil. Adolf Hitler and Osoma bin Laden believe the evil they committed was justified by God, or some higher power. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, from the play by Shakespeare, were not evil because they wanted to be, they did it for a greater good.
Socrates states to the jurors in his trail, “No evil can happen to a good man” (48). Socrates is examining the moral center of the man. Evil can occur to an individual from the outside. Socrates a good, even innocent, man was sentenced to death. Other characters in history and even today are identified as good, but they still have evil occur to them. Socrates is not talking about an outside evil or harm occurring to a good person. He is examining the soul and what is morally evil and morally good.
Every human is born with the potential to be inherently evil. Whether they choose this path or not depends on the influences of the outside world. We can see an example of how this is true from the book, Lord of the Flies by William Golding. Although all of the boys in the novel start out as innocent choirboys, they show their true form of evil when they are put in a dire situation. The boys no longer become friends to one another, instead they try to kill animals and even each other for the pure enjoyment of it. Humans are born evil and have the intent of doing violent and harmful things as evident by; the world’s history, violence as a source of entertainment, constant wars, and bullies, both cyber and physical.
...ativity or modesty leading to insecurity. This correlates to Plato’s argument because it is a good example of appetites not being controlled by rationality. All of these good traits, left unchecked by rationality become self destructive qualities. If you’re self destructive you are not happy. But using Plato’s guidelines or definition to a just soul or a just person this transformation of seemingly good virtues into vice can be prevented.
In this paper, I am going to discuss Plato and Aristotle's viewpoints on inconsistency within the soul in accordance with virtue and vice. Aristotle identifies bad and good states of character. The bad includes vice, inconsistency, lack of moderation, and brutality. These are mirrored alongside their positive counterparts of virtue, superhuman virtue, moderation, and consistency. This can also be extrapolated to cover softness and its opposite of endurance and courage. The problem arises when considering inconsistency and incontinence between these paralleled vices and virtues. In this Paper, I will analyze and provide an account of how the philosophers Plato and Aristotle tackle questions regarding this inconsistency. The questions that arrive regarding this are as follows. How does inconsistency arise and manifest itself, and in what way does it delineate itself from vice.