Preview

“No One Knowingly Does Evil” by Socrates.

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1083 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
“No One Knowingly Does Evil” by Socrates.
The argument which I am focusing on is titled “No One Knowingly Does Evil” and is written by Socrates. This argument concludes that those who do evil things do them involuntarily. That is, people do not necessarily want to do evil things, but do them against their will. A very important point is presented by Socrates in that evil deeds are not done willingly. It is thought by many that some people are simply evil-natured and commit evil deeds because they want to. However, Socrates is arguing that this is not true. By doing this, he is going against common thought and presenting a very debatable conclusion. I will evaluate the argument so as to prove it is a legitimate possibility for the conclusion to be true. It will be shown why it is necessary to look more closely at this argument. Also, objections to this argument will also be discussed. This will show the other side of the story in addition to possible rebuttals by Socrates.

Socrates’ first premise is that “All who do evil things do them against their own will.” This statement is saying that humans do not have control over what they are doing when they commit an evil act. In other words, humans are overcome by some other power and are forced to do these things. Socrates makes it seem as though humans do not have a choice about whether to do right or wrong in some situations, but rather the option to commit evil is chosen for them. Secondly, he states, “One would not voluntarily act against his own will.” Here, Socrates is furthering the thought that humans are overcome by some power and commit acts involuntarily. He explains that no human would want to do something if they were not willing and therefore must be forced into doing it. Putting these two premises together yields the conclusion that “All who do evil things do them involuntarily.” Socrates, in summary, is stating that those who do evil things do not have control over their actions and must be influenced in a very strong way to

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    He believes that these laws has given him birth, have educated him, raised him and have shared the wealth of Athens with him. Socrates thinks that the people of Athens are free to leave if they find the laws unjust, but if they want to stay then they must abide by the laws of Athens. The only thing that he points out are the people in power. He thinks that the people who are in power have changed the original laws for their own benefit. “been wronged, not by the Laws, but by men” (p 54). Socrates accepts death penalty because he wants the laws should be remain in place. Given opportunities such as exile or apology, he argues that if he escape from the prison, it will destroy the laws of the city and, eventually, the city because according to Socrates no city can survive without its laws being enforced. Therefore, Socrates steadfast by his believes of not violating any…

    • 521 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Socrates Quote Analysis

    • 389 Words
    • 2 Pages

    This quote is significant because it exemplifies the way Socrates uses HIS method. Socrates uses metaphors in order to humbly enlighten his audience. At times Socrates structure of explanation is perceived to be complex and or difficult to interpret. To simplify what he is attempting to get across usually takes a thorough examination. Socrates is from ancient times and his methodology still suits fit to modern day. Analyzing the context of his circumstances before death alone goes to show the depth of understanding one needs to comprehend his ideology and beliefs. This quote also provides us with the notion of not being selfish and to avoid pretentious. When one thinks about death or the chance of dying when they’re in a predicament because…

    • 389 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Interlocutor Vs Meno

    • 1706 Words
    • 7 Pages

    In this dialogue, Socrates is attempting to defense himself at the trial and prove his innocence, while others are trying to put him to death for introducing strange gods and corrupting the youth. Socrates's first sentence sets the tone and direction for the whole dialogue. Socrates, in addressing the men of Athens, states that he almost forgets who he is because of…

    • 1706 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    This higher law can be the divine laws of reason. Socrates may be consistent in his approach to just and unjust law. A paradox may exist between the Athenian Law and the laws of reason. What Socrates could have been suggesting is that it would have been impossible for him not to philosophize and use his reason. In this way, to not be politically disobedient, he would have to change the very nature of his being. In essence, Socrates was not ‘disobeying’; rather he was incapable of ‘obeying’. An example would be if the Athenian State asked him to pass through the eye of a threading needle. In this instance, the task is impossible and by default Socrates would defy the state – not be cause won’t but because he can’t. It is important to note that in all instances leading up to the trial, that Socrates faced justice vs. unjust choices. The final ultimatum was an impossible instruction: actively terminate your ability to dialogue and reason. To obey the state, Socrates drank the hemlock. This was the only way to consistently obey the state and be…

    • 1174 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    My view of this argument is that Socrates is basically stating that self-defense is wrong. Socrates is stating that if you are harmed, you cannot harm in return. I believe this statement is false. If you are being attacked and are in danger of being hurt or even possibly killed, then who is to say that defending yourself is wrong? In my opinion, this statement is horribly written and doesn’t take into account the intentional harm that people bring upon others. Instead, this statement assumes that all people that do harm, do it unintentionally and its all just an accident, so therefore, one should not inflict harm in return for being…

    • 1536 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Socrates believed that his purpose, as a moral individual, was to achieve true wisdom of virtue and justice. With this considered, one may ask, "Then why did he accept punishment for crimes he didn't commit?" Socrates didn't care for fate, because he was only concerned for whether or not he and others were doing the right thing. This belief is shown to be evident when Socrates says, "You are sadly mistaken, fellow, if you suppose that a man with even a grain of self-respect should reckon up the risks of living or dying, rather than simply consider, whenever he does something, whether his actions are just or unjust, the deeds of a good man or a bad one." (Defence of Socrates, 28a).…

    • 527 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Socrates is a well know philosopher, who has given his opinion in many topics including the one about evil. Socrate's perspective on the nature of human evil is that morality is a term that refers to the creation of and to follow the rules that govern human behavior on the basis of some idea of right and wrong. Even though you might have a different concept of morality, to him it must help humans to be able to tell wrong from right. Socrates believed that nobody chooses to do wrong knowing that they are doing the wrong thing. He has always thought that if you do wrong somehow you are doing something harmful to yourself and that no one ever has wanted to hurt themselves in no way. To him because people are ignorant, is the reason why they do the wrong thing instead of the right thing. This means that it is impossible for a…

    • 872 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    First, the just man is always more intelligent than the unjust man. Socrates' argues that the one who is the more intelligent human being between the just and unjust man. The second is concern with the idea that the unjust man gains strength from acting unjustly. According to Socrates, this idea is really the unjust man's down…

    • 397 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1776, Thomas Paine uses Common Sense to address the overwhelming issue of the American colonies relationship with Britain. Paine clearly writes with the intention of convincing colonists to support the separation of the colonies from Britain. Soon after it’s release, Common Sense erupted with popularity and moved many Colonists in support of American independence. Thomas Paine is able to use Common Sense to gain support for the independence of American colonies through his attack on the concept of a monarchy, his ability to address and eliminate the colonists’ counter arguments, and his reasoning on why the colonies need to break away as soon as possible.…

    • 1009 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    I do not agree with this theory. For Socrates, the key to a virtuous life was knowledge of the GOOD. He believed, if one knew the Good one would choose it. One always chooses the best of the options available. The question is what is the Good? He would say, evil is the result of ignorance, and that Wrong doing is involuntary. Evil doers must be educated, instructed as to what truly is the GOOD and then they will choose it. If people knew what was the right thing to do they would do it. We always choose what we think is the best or good for us. So, if someone chooses to do what we think is wrong, then that person made a mistake and must be educated to see the error. They mistook evil for the GOOD. But, I believe that there are many people that do commit evil doings, while truly knowing that they are in fact evil. Again, Socrates would indeed argue that these poor souls were somehow shown that these ways were the right ways or the “good” ways. I would love to believe that there is no evil in the world. But, I believe that there is evil within all of us, but it only comes out if we allow it.…

    • 409 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Plato's Crito

    • 513 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In Plato’s Crito, Socrates and one of his followers, Crito, discuss the opinion of the “majority” and its effects on Socrates’ current situation. Crito first assumes that Socrates should care about the majority opinion, especially in his current case because “the majority can do not just minor harms but the very worst things to someone who’s been slandered in front of them” (44d). Socrates responds and dismisses the possibility of the majority having an unlimited capacity for doing harm. He explains by asserting, “they cannot make a man either wise or foolish, but they can inflict things haphazardly” (47). The point Socrates portrays to Crito is that the “majority” acts without knowledge and merely follow their own feelings. The accidental or rather unconscious character of these personal feelings is what causes the majority to act haphazardly. The real harm being done within “the majority” is the act of being foolish rather than the real good of being wise. Socrates expresses, however, that the majority is unable to do either. “I only wish, Crito, that the majority could do the very worst things, then they might also be able to do the very best ones- and everything would be fine” (44d). He further explains that the truth is, the majority cannot do either of these because they do not have the capability of making someone either wise or unwise. The effects, then, that the majority produces “are really the result of chance” (44d). The good man cannot be harmed by the bad precisely because his goodness consists in his not allowing others to make him foolish.…

    • 513 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Some may object and say the argument is unsound because of different factors. One objection to this argument may be that people won’t seek revenge on Socrates because he is old and poor already and that those corrupted do not feel the need for revenge. Or possibly, he corrupted them in such a way which would prevent them from turning back on Socrates. These are some objections one may have, but in my opinion, they are not strong enough to make the argument unsound. If people did not feel the need for revenge despite what had happened to them due to Socrates’ teachings, then they were clearly not corrupted. I believe that if Socrates corrupted all of the people he taught, at least one of them would have come forward to seek some sort of…

    • 510 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    "Common Sense" is an argumentative essay written by Thomas Paine. This essay was distributed as pamphlets during the early beginnings of the American Revolution to incite and make the Americans aware of the British control of the freedom of American citizens.…

    • 973 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Socrates Unjust

    • 551 Words
    • 3 Pages

    This establishes that whether or not Socrates originally believes his punishment is right, by staying in Athens his entire life, he made a commitment to follow the law-being just-therefore, if he is accused of breaking the law and is convicted by the courts of Athens, which represent the law, then he must complete his sentence, or else he is only becoming more unjust. Socrates later decides that although he could escape, it is better to try and do the right thing, despite having done unjust things in the past, and ultimately decides to carry out his punishment. This passage also further examines the gray area within the idea of just and unjust by saying that following the laws is just; however, the people of the court who determine which acts are within the bounds the laws and which acts are not, are also biased according to their own personal perceptions, meaning no human truly knows the intransigent definitions of what is just and what is unjust.…

    • 551 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    If the only way to save your life was to blame an innocent member in your community, would you? In The Crucible, Arthur Miller expresses the acts of finding a scapegoat through John Proctor and Reverend Hale juxtaposed to Abigail, the girls and some of the accused. Many of the accused “witches” admit to being a witch and save their own lives by offering the names of other witches in the community. If the accused claim they are not witches, they will be hanged for witchcraft, but if they confess and desire God’s forgiveness, their lives will be spared. “HALE: You have confessed yourself to witchcraft, and that speaks a wish to come to Heaven’s side. And we will bless you Tituba.” (Page 43).…

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays