Socrates Views On Akrasia

No One Does Wrong Willingly

The problem of akrasia is a critical theoretical issue in the history of western philosophy, contemporary western philosophy, and moral philosophy. This problem was first raised by Socrates. The Greek word for the weakness of will or incontinence is akrasia, generally refers to that acts which violate the best choices of human beings. Besides, the problem of akrasia means that is it possible for people to do actions which violate their best choices? Socrates clear stated that incontinent behaviors are not possible. This view is mainly reflected in his opinion which is no one errs or does wrong willingly or knowingly. This essay will discuss that the reason why Socrates believed that nobody knowingly or voluntarily
does wrong, elaborates his argument, analyzes major problems of the argument, and enlightenment of Socrates' ideas for modern society.

Plato's Protagoras showed Socrates' thoughts. In this dialogue, it referred to a general public perception that many people know what is best, but do not want to act by it. In their view, it is possible for people to do evil voluntarily. Socrates retorted that nobody willingly chooses to do wrong. In other words, it is impossible for a wise person to act against their best choices. Socrates believed that wise persons would not think that someone would be interested in crime, or intends to do evil and despicable things. All sinful or vile acts are involuntarily committed (Plato, Protagoras, 345e). In other dialogues of Plato, such as Gorgias and Meno, Socrates also expounded similar ideas.

How to explain people's voluntary behavior of evil?
Why is the weakness of will impossible? In Protagoras, Socrates argued his point. He started his argument from the premise of pursuing happiness and avoiding suffering as human nature. The reason why most people do not accept the impossibility of weakness of will is that they thought that the factor that dominates people's behavior was not people's knowledge but is emotions such as lust, happiness, pain, love, Fear and so on. That's why most believed that many people know the best, but not willing to do it. These people are not conquered by knowledge, but other things, like happiness. Therefore, the premise which public can understand is that pursuit of happiness and avoid suffering is human nature. Although this premise is helpful for Socrates to prove his point of view, he did not approve of the premise. In Protagoras, he said that knowledge could not be enslaved by other affections, including happiness. Knowledge and wisdom are the most powerful determinants of human beings (Plato, Protagoras, 352c-d). The purpose of Socratic's argumentation is to make people admit that weakness is impossible. Since most people believe Hedonism, he uses this premise which most people considered to proof his argument and help him to persuade people to accept his point of view. Hence, Socrates' entire argument is based on the premise that he does not believe, which significantly weakened the credibility of his argument. This strategy makes
Socrates turns a philosopher who is not the pursuit of truth but merely plays with concepts and skills of logic.

In Gorgias, Socrates believed that the purpose of action and action itself were different.
People will do something bad for now, such as taking medicine, are for long-term happiness, such as health. The action itself may be reluctant, but the result of the action is good. People did not act for action, but act for some purpose, and the goal must be good and beneficial for people. Otherwise, human beings would not take actions that cannot lead to happiness. Thus, no one willingly does wrong (Plato, Gorgias, 467c-468d). When consequences of short-term happiness behaviors conflict with long-term happiness, for example, when immediate pleasure, such as drug abuse, could cause long-term suffering, the long-term hedonist believes that once wise people recognize this situation, they will certainly give up the immediate happiness, and the pursuit of long-term happiness, to avoid long-term pain. Socrates believed that people must always choose more happiness and less pain. If happiness is to be compared with pain, as long as happiness is greater than pain, no matter immediate or future, people will undoubtedly choose those behaviors that will bring happiness; but if it is more painful than happiness, then people will avoid those actions (Plato, Protagoras, 356b-c). Socrates had demonstrated that happiness is good and pain is evil, on the premise that the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of suffering are human nature. People will avoid pain which means they will avoid evil;
therefore, no one willingly does something evil.

So, how to explain some people to pursue evil things? In the Protagoras, Socrates claimed that it is because some people lacked knowledge of good and evil, which are happiness and pain. They regard short-term happiness as good, neglecting the long-term suffering, and mistaking short-term pain that leads to long-term pleasure as mistakes or evil. This misunderstanding is due to a severe ignorance to the consequences of actions and actions themselves, as well as short-term happiness and long-term happiness. In Socrates's view, if a person knows a good behavior but does something contrary to it, he or she must misunderstand the consequence of the action (Plato, Protagoras, 355a-358e). Therefore, those who truly know good or evil, they must do something good, and those who do evil are the ignorant. In other words, the weakness of will must have to satisfy two necessary conditions: first, people know the true good and evil; secondly, they do wrong willingly. Socrates asserted that these two conditions could not be satisfied at the same time.

In short, Socrates argument can be summarized as Human nature or voluntary actions are for the pursuit of long-term happiness, to avoid the long-term pain. At the same time, long-term happiness is a good and long-term pain is evil. Therefore, human nature or voluntary action is to pursue good and avoid evil. So, if a person truly knows what are good and evil, he or she must avoid evil. If a person willingly does something wrong, it must be due to his or her ignorance of good and evil. If and only if people know the true good and evil, and perform evil acts voluntarily, then the weakness of will is possible. Therefore, weakness of will is impossible. However, this argument is not rigorous enough.

Many good actions are hard to interpret as behavior which can bring long-term happiness to people, for example, courageous and sacrificial actions. However, as long as these acts exist, then the premise of hedonism cannot be truthful. Also, if Socrates' conclusion is true, the behaviors those are good for the individual also good for society. However, the interests of individual and society are not always consistent. Although Socrates and Plato believed they are consistent, there are many counter-examples in real life. For example, if corruption by a government official is not detected, and will not be discovered later, then his or her behavior is consistent with his or her long-term happiness and his interests, but this does not mean that these actions are good and moral. At the same time, people often do something wrong with knowing it is wrong. Even if a person knows the truly good and evil, and can identify the long-term happiness and interest, also want to pursue the long-term happiness, he or she might still not to seek good and avoid evil. For instance, a smoker knows that smoking is bad for health and could increase the probability of getting cancer. At the same time, he or she also does not want to have cancer or be unhealthy, but he or she may continue to smoke. In other words, the behavior of weakness of will is possible. Since Socrates's argument is based on some questionable premise or assumption, therefore, its conclusion is untenable.

Although Socrates's argument of impossible of weakness of will is not justified, his argument process and the issues that he raised still can inspire people. In the majority of cases, the long-term interests are likely to stimulate the most people. Therefore, a profound and thorough explanation of the relationship between moral requirements or ethical behavior and the long-term benefits of people, and render them understand it, in the most cause, long-term interest is possible to become motivated for people to do the moral behavior. At the same time, it is not enough to rely solely on this kind of self-interest belief for moral education, but it also needs to explain the relationship between the interests of society as a whole and happiness of individuals for the public. This information shows that in most cases, education needs to enable people to understand the priority of social interests and ethical requirements truly, and ultimately to internalize those into conscious or instinctive motives for people. Indeed, there is a link between people's long-term benefits or long-term happiness and moral or good. At the same time, this relationship is conducive to improving the efficiency of moral education. Therefore, if a person knows about good and evil, he or she is likely not to sin voluntarily, and this knowledge can help people discern good and evil and more effective conduct moral education.