No One Does wrong willingly

The premise of this argument is essentially Socrates¡¯ statement that virtue is knowledge. If one does not do the right thing, then it cannot be that one knew what should be done under the circumstances but lacked the virtue to do it. Rather, if one lacked the virtue, then one lacked the knowledge. So, any wrongdoing that one does is done in ignorance. Socrates argument is extended as follows:

Statement 1: Men are knowledgeable. Call this (P)

Statement 2: Men are virtuous enough to obey the ¡®right¡¯ knowledge. Call this (Q)

Statement 3: Someone does something wrong. Call it (T)

Premise 1: P ¡ú Q (Virtue is knowledge)

. . .

All men do things wrong ¡°unwillingly¡±, negating which we get ¡°No one does wrong willingly¡±.

Nevertheless I believe that the point where this theory breaks down (in the imperfect world) is the premise ¡°Virtue is Knowledge¡±.

Statement 2: A human should be allowed to die. Premise 2: P

------------------------------------

Conclusion 1: Q (Modus Ponens)

Premise 4: ~Q || ~P ¡ú T

[T can only happen if men lack virtue (~Q), OR men lack the knowledge (~P)]

We just proved Q to be true (conclusion 1); therefore it follows that:

Conclusion 2: T is caused by lack of P, (~P ¡ú T). Socrates was not concerned to find out or observe or describe or explain how people behave under normal or actual conditions.

First, it follows from common sense that having knowledge of what is the right thing to do in a situation is one thing in a situation is one thing, and actually doing it another.

¡°Knowledge is virtue¡± again has its shortcoming, but it applies more to the real world than ¡°Virtue is knowledge¡±. For example, a man is being assaulted by a group of 10 hooligans in a secluded area. If I pass by that area, I would know (from my knowledge) that the right thing to do would be to intervene and save the man, But would I have the courage to do it? While researching for this paper, I read somewhere that Socrates¡¯ theories are perfectionist in nature; i. ¡°Right Knowledge¡± can be ambiguous at times. I would like to offer a resolution by saying that ¡°Knowledge is Virtue¡± and ¡°Virtue is not Knowledge¡±. Using the symbols as above:

Premise 1: Q ¡ú P

Premise 2: P

If I try to infer Q from this, I would be affirming the consequent. they only apply to a perfect world, so I might be caught trying to apply them to an imperfect world.

Common topics in this essay:
Ponens Premise, Call Premise, Knowledge¡± Using, Willingly Socrates, Call Statement, call statement, premise 1, die call, ¡ú premise, ¡°virtue knowledge¡±, premise 2, call statement 3, call premise 1, human allowed die, premise 1 ¡ú, statement 3, 1 ¡ú, call premise, virtue lacked, allowed die call,

Approximate Word count = 631
Approximate Pages = 3 (250 words per page double spaced)

Already a member? Click here