Protagoras Plato No One Does Evil Knowingly Reading
According to Socrates (Plato, 1961) it is not in human nature to choose to act in a way what ane believes to be harmful, instead of a mode that is expert. He claimed that all wrong, or evil, is only done out of ignorance and non from the intention to practise evil. This view appears controversial because people are known to occasionally commit deeds that are plainly evil either out of self-interest or acting on impulse, against their best. However, when we wait at the logics backside human behaviours and motivation, the concept begins to make more than sense. Socrates asserted that all human actions were driven by cocky-interest. He also argued that this instinct prevents people from intentionally harming themselves and that when people do harmful things, it is merely out of ignorance; either not knowing what volition benefit them the most, not knowing the correct method of attaining that benefit, or not knowing how non to exercise something which is harmful to them. Socrates saw no disharmonize between cocky-interest and morality. On the contrary, he saw virtue every bit the greatest do good and maintained that immoral actions really harmed the agent and could therefore just exist committed out of ignorance and misunderstanding of what the greatest benefit is. The aim of this essay is to demonstrate how information technology is possible that nobody does wrong knowingly.
Right and wrong, expert and bad are typically associated with human actions, and Socrates has successfully demonstrated that the motivation for every action is self-involvement. According to him, an individual will always choose the form of action that, at the time of decision, is perceived to bring them the greatest benefit (or the least harm) out of all available options. This is true fifty-fifty for actions that announced donating. For example, someone who gives money to charity does so because it makes them feel good and they perceive the pleasure derived from helping people every bit a greater do good than spending the coin on themselves. What an individual perceives as the best form of activeness may not necessarily align with what they want. As Socrates tells Polus (Plato, 2013) that ane chooses to drinkable medicine for the sake of wellness, a longer-term benefit, fifty-fifty though it is unpleasant and is not what one ones to practice. Therefore, a person may cull an unpleasant means or sacrifice some curt-term gain, if they believe the finish upshot will benefit them. Socrates (Plato, 2013) also suggests that "tyrants" do not simply impale or exile people because they want to, but because they think it "conduces to their own expert". This demonstrates that all actions, whether they appear selfish or altruistic, good or evil, pleasant or not, are driven by the instinct to benefit oneself.
Socrates farther argued that it is against human nature to impairment oneself knowingly, or go against one's own self interest. In Protagoras (Plato, 1961) he claims that: "No one who either knows or believes that at that place is another grade of action better than the ane he is following volition ever proceed on his present course when he might choose the better". In other words, Socrates attributed any actions that impairment the actor to ignorance or lack of noesis. This position was challenged past Plato (in his later works) and, fifty-fifty more and so, by Aristotle (Lemke, 1999). They recognised the beingness of "moral weakness". This is when people act against their all-time judgement, knowing that something is bad or harmful (possibly fifty-fifty being ashamed of information technology), simply yet doing it due to lack of self-control or out of passion. For instance, an alcoholic knows the negative consequences of drinking wine, but does it anyway, unable to resist. This proposition seems to contradict the thought that nobody does wrong knowingly, just the ii are non mutually exclusive. Moral weakness can be viewed as a grade of ignorance, like not knowing how to overcome one's intemperance. Or existence blinded by pain or passion, perceivable only to the individual, doing the "wrong" thing may seem like the only option, and non a selection at all. And so, if a person is aware that they are acting wrongly, but unaware of how to overcome internal or external factors forcing them to have this course of action, they are doing it out of ignorance and not considering they choose to harm themselves.
Beliefs about what is right behaviour and what is incorrect behaviour are known as morality (Merriam-Webster, 2013) and take occupied the minds of philosophers for centuries. When self-interest (the greatest motivator) is concerned, people take been known to human activity immorally, which appears to contradict the thought that nobody does wrong knowingly. For example, if someone was erroneously given more coin than they were due, information technology seems that it would in their interest to proceed it; but that would be immoral. Nevertheless, information technology is important to empathize that Socrates saw no disharmonize between acting out of self-interest and being moral (Cipher, 1985). He believed that the greatest benefit lay not in fabric riches, just in the "improvement of the soul" (Plato, 1993) and that living a life of virtue resulted in greater pleasure and inner-peace than being unjust or immoral. He saw that those who strive for other pleasures, such as wealth and power, exercise not know where their true interest lies. Therefore, by acting immorally or harming others, they are actually harming themselves even more by detracting from their own virtue and therefore from their own happiness. Keeping in mind that nobody willingly harms him or herself, interim immorally is a result of ignorance and not knowing where one'south true interests lie.
From this nosotros tin explain Socrates' viewnobody does wrong knowingly in the following style: The motivation for any actions is self-interest and nobody volition willingly harm themselves if they know a way not to. Everybody chooses that action which seems best at the time of decision. The best kind of self-involvement, in Socrates' view, is living a virtuous life, which is the ultimate source of happiness. Therefore, evil actions are a issue of misguided motivation and lack of understanding of what is the greatest good. Following this logic, those who do not think virtue is the ultimate self-benefit are either misguided or will not necessarily perceive traditionally immoral deportment every bit incorrect, as long as they're in line with that which they do perceive as the greater interest. It is this chain of thought that explains why "There is only one expert, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance" (Diogenes Laertius, 1925) and how it is possible that all wrongdoing is the result of ignorance and lack of understanding rather than the intention to do wrong.
References
Diogenes Laertius (1925). Lives of eminent philosophers. London: West. Heinemann
Merriam-Webster (2013). Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Morality. Retrieved December 12, 2013 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/lexicon/morality
Lemke Southward. W (1999). Moral Weakness and Moral Virtue. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary Retrieved December seven, 2013 from http://www.nobts.edu/faculty/itor/lemkesw/personal/aarethics.html .
Nill, Thousand. (1989) Morality and Cocky Involvement in Protagoras Antiphon and Democritus. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill.
Plato (January 15, 2013). Gorgias. The Project Gutenberg EBook of Gorgias. Retrieved Novmber thirty, 2013 from http://world wide web.gutenberg.org/files/1672/1672-h/1672-h.htm
Plato (1993) The Apology.The Last Days of Socrates. London: Penguin Books Ltd. pp. 37-67.
Plato (1961). The Collected Dialogues of Plato. Edited by Cairns H. and Hamilton E. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Academy Printing.
Source: https://midnightmediamusings.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/socrates-claim-that-nobody-does-wrong-knowingly-essay/
0 Response to "Protagoras Plato No One Does Evil Knowingly Reading"
Post a Comment