One of the most debatable issues investigated by Socrates is his suggestions on the nature of peoples’ evil actions. The philosopher claimed that people tend to commit only good deeds and no one can knowingly choose to do evil, hence, all the harm is done out of ignorance (Ambury). The purpose of this paper is to discuss the idea and the argument in favor of it as well as to give an analysis of them.
In accordance with Socrates’s views, genuinely good can itself be inflictive. While achieving long-term positive influence, good things might be painful and bring some harm for a short period of time, too (Ambury). For example, the extraction of a tooth is an unpleasant experience but the general effect is good because it allows tackling the problem. Therefore, it can be concluded that having a tooth removed is good despite the fact that it brings suffering at the moment of extraction.
The problem is that sometimes it is not easy to figure out if an action is truly evil or construes a necessary disagreeable part of what is genuinely good. Hence, when a person does wickedly the reason for the evil deed is not an intent to do harm to others but a wrong judgment. He or she just perceives evil as a painful part of a good thing. Returning to the example with a tooth, such misunderstanding can occur when a dental professional removes a healthy tooth by mistake thinking it will be beneficial. They perceive the tooth as a source of the ailment while in fact, it is not. Hence, the whole experience might be regarded as harmful and evil although the dentist sees it as genuinely good.
In my opinion, the argument described above might be seen as a strong one because it supports the author’s position. I as well as many people tend to perceive others as being ill-tempered and malicious while they are not and just have their own good motives. For example, personalities who have caused pain, suffering, and harm to a large number of people such as despot or tyrant rulers, are regarded as having a desire to torture others willingly. However, the perception of the situation from the viewpoint of a ruler differs immensely from that of a layman, like me. A person vested with power thinks about the common welfare first.
That is why when, for instance, a group of people that are believed to be betrayers is caught and killed at the order of the ruler, others regard this as a demonstration of malice. Nevertheless, the ruler supposes that by giving the order, he or she does the right thing for without such members as betrayers, the society would be healthier, and the general welfare easier to achieve. If the people killed in fact were no criminals, the ruler’s deed would amount to evil. However, the main point here is the absence of the desire to do wickedly on purpose that personalities vested with power are often thought to possess.
To sum up, Socrates pressed the point that no person would choose to do harm willingly. His argument was that one does cruel things only out of ignorance taking evil for a painful part of good by mistake. This argument seems to be strong for it proves the author’s position. Indeed, people are often ready to put evil deeds to malicious intent while the true origin of such actions is ignorance and misunderstanding.
References
Ambury, James M. “Socrates.” IEP. Web.