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.
People make a choice everyday in the path they choose.I have found there are people who make choices. And Those that choices seem to make them. Some who make good ones, and others that make bad. Even though the cruel people seem to jump out at us most, you can always find those who are good if you keep looking. There is always a balance of good And evil. Whether a person is half and half, or it is the world that is half and half. This depends on what wolf you feed. That is
The cause of how people have chosen evil has been a conceptual issue for thousands of years on many different perspectives. People from a religious point of view believe that the underlining cause of evil is sin and temptation. Half of the time humans can choose good over evil in situations based off the legal system and the moral standards of society. "The interest of work in the common would not hold it together, instinctual ...
verses evil, the monster is meant to be evil but we as the reader feel
It is possible to divide man into three basic types; the man of reason or logic who seeks wisdom; the spirited man who seeks success and honor, and the man of desire who seeks gain and appetite. Although each man is dominated by one component of the soul, the three elements are in constant conversation. Upon being asked each person would say that his or her class lives the best and the philosophers feel they must discuss which of these classes’ lives best. Each believe their greatest pleasure in life to be the paramount, however Socrates argues that only the man of reason could have experienced the happiness of knowledge because he alone of the three possesses it. He explains that the pleasures of the other types of men are not true pleasures as they are “the pleasures of necessity, since he would have no use for them if necessity were not laid upon him” Of these three classes, the man of reason (the lover of wisdom) possesses knowledge of the Forms, in turn, Justice. Therefore the man of justice and reason is correct in his judging himself to be the happiest, solidifying his argument that the lover of wisdom has the greatest pleasure and in turn the just man leads a happier life than the unjust man. Plato also suggests that of the three type of man the man of reason would be the most kingly i.e. the most suitable to rule. He envisions an ideal society where those who have knowledge of the Forms have
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:
...t evil is but the absence of good. I feel that God did make everything good, and it is the absence of good that causes evil. People choose the road they feel like taking throughout life. I think of it this way; God started us off on this world all consisting of good and it is we who choose to become evil. This follows through with Augustine’s next idea, which I also agree with, in that there can be no evil where there is no good.
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.
Plato believes the conversation to search for what virtue really is should continue despite achieving no success in their first efforts to form a satisfactory definition. Meno becomes very aggravated with Plato and proposes a valid argument to him. Meno exclaims,
Certainly, it would be better for anyone to hang out with good people rather than bad people just simply because the good people would have a better influence on everyone. This was why Socrates asked the following questions: “do not the villainous do something bad to whoever is nearest to them, while the good do something good” (Apology 75)? Then the key question to the refutation was “is there anyone, then, who wishes, to be harmed by those he associates with, rather than to be benefited” (Apology 75)? Certainly, no one wished to be harmed by whom they were surrounded with. The subsequent question posed to Meletus was “do you bring me in here saying that I voluntarily corrupt the young and make them villainous, or involuntarily” (Apology 75)? With this question, Socrates presented two possibilities in which Socrates either voluntarily corrupted the youth or he corrupted the youth involuntarily. For the first option, Socrates developed one premise, which was no one intentionally harm themselves. The reasoning behind this was that corrupting someone the same as dragging that person down. Consequently, the person wanted to revenge and tried to attack the corrupter. As the cycle was repeated, ultimately everybody was going down. Hence, corrupting someone voluntarily was to cause indirectly harm for
Evil can be a scary thing many things can influence on why a person may be considered evil or do evil things.People do things because they were influenced by others or by their own selfish desires,
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.
Evil is everywhere. Some people do not mean to hurt others, and do not mean to be careless about others. Some people can convince others to make the wrong choice or to make a big mistake. Sometimes people do not know what position to take or what decision to make. That is why there are people who can convince others to be something bad such as a murder.
...ing, it is safe to say that humans are not by nature evil but instead, they are good but easily influenced by the environment and society to act in evil way and do such evil things. You choose the road you want to take; either it’s the bad road or the good road. We are all born to live a life where we will be faced with good and evil things. We were not born to be an evil or bad person, but as you get older you make that choice. What do you want to be remembered as: the good or the bad person? Choose to be good over being bad because the rewards to your family, your friend, and yourself will always outweigh the bad.
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.