Is Socrates right to claim that vengeance is always wrong - Essay Example

Is Socrates right to claim that vengeance is always wrong? Introduction Socrates based his arguments on moralphilosophy on the nature of good and bad life. Socrates discussions entailed interrogations of another person on moral virtues such as courage especially how the qualities amounted to and he they were acquired (Plato, 1981). Socrates idea was to challenge the traditional notions and encourage those who claimed to have ‘wisdom’ to think harder and improve their view n those virtues that lead to good life (Colaiaco, 2013). Socrates asserts that the qualities of souls determine the character of lives and human beings must desire to live a happy life. Socrates explained what is a virtue and reasons why people do evil or bad things (Bensen, 1992). Socrates preferred to maintain his integrity and decided to answer to charges of impiety and corrupting Athenian youths (Colaiaco, 2013). Socrates was not angry with the jurors and his arguments in the apology demonstrated that death should not be used as deterrence to philosophy since no man has true knowledge of death. After listening to Crito, Socrates refuses to escape since he believes it would be unjust to his reputation and those of his children. Thesis statement: Socrates is right to claim that vengeance is wrong. Socrates debates on whether it is right or wrong to injure or harm another person in retaliation for wrongs committed. According to Socrates, vengeance is wrong and escaping would amount to retaliation thus his escape would be wrong (Bensen, 1992). Socrates goes further to argue that one must never willingly commit wrongs notwithstanding the circumstances (Weiss, 1998). In addition, one must not do wrong even when wronged and therefore vengeance is wrong. Socrates Elenchus clearly argues against Homeric traditions that justice should be repaid by harming enemies. Socrates argues for a good life by comparing a healthy body with a healthy soul and claiming that life would not be worthy living if the higher part of man is destroyed by injustice (Crito 47e). Accordingly, Socrates points out doing wrong or vengeance is evil and dishonourable thus human beings must not do any wrong. Socrates clarifies that doing injustice is even worst for oneself than being subjected to it (Gorgias 469c-522e) since those who do injustice make their souls worse. In this argument, Socrates demonstrates that if one treats you unjustly, will leave your soul unaffected thus this is a less harm compared to the harm that the unjust man suffers himself. I conquer that Greek precept of aiding one’s friends and harming one’s enemies amount to vengeance and is wrong since it leads to more harm and misery in the society. Vengeance or doing evil in return for evil is wrong since it is the same as injuring the enemy (Weiss, 1998). From this argument, it is clear that vengeance of rendering evil for evil is wrong despite the injury that one may have suffered (Crito 49c). In this case, a man whose wife or little girl is killed a criminal has not right to take the law in to his hands and take revenge by taking away the life of the criminal. In this case, the courts and entire justice system would condemn his actions and no moral principles support his actions. Accordingly, vengeance if we can analyse the recent wars that have occurred across the world. For instance, President George Bush accused Iraq of aiding terrorists after the September 11 attacks and went further to sanction military action against Saddam Hussein and Taliban regime. The results of the vengeance ere unjust since more innocent civilians lost their lives and property thus Socrates is justified by claiming that vengeance is wrong. Accordingly, most men believe that victory can only be attained by eliminating the enemies especially during global conflicts, but Hiroshima Bombings demonstrate that political supremacy must not be attained through vengeance. Socrates goes ahead to advance the proposition of virtue makes people good. In addition, if people are good they are benefited by the benefits of good things. Some of the things that benefit people include beauty, good health and strength, but the same things also harm man. In this case, it is only rational than people choose things that benefit rather than harm. In this case, people prefer qualities like justice, courage and intelligence and ignore things like ignorance since it harms. From this argument, I agree with Socrates that what the soul endures and undertakes is good and ends in happiness, but ignorance results to harm. Accordingly, beneficial virtues must be accompanied by wisdom (Memo, 87c-88d). Bad things lead to misery and unhappiness and no man desires to live a miserable and unhappy lifestyle by desiring the things that harm man (Memo 77b-78b). Accordingly, I agree with Socrates that ‘no one would freely go for bad things or things he believes are bad’ since an individual will rationally choose the lesser evil if compelled to select between two evils (Protagoras, 358d4). A case example that demonstrates the virtues that lead to benefits is Dalai Lama who has continued to tolerate Chinese atrocities against Tibetan people. In this case, Dalai Lama believes that vengeance against Chinese authorities will only lead to more miseries, suffering and harm and would not be in the interest of Tibetan people. This is a clear example that vengeance is always wrong. Accordingly, good people must not suffer any harm since they have virtues that lead to excellence. Bad things lead to harm that ultimately diminishes an excellent life and thus good people must not be subjected to any harm. In Plato’s Protagoras, Socrates denies that the possibility of weakness of will that make man have a desire to voluntarily act in a manner that he or she knows is bad and wrong (Guthrie, 1969). Socrates demonstrates that all voluntary wrongs are caused by ignorance of how one should act. In this argument, Socrates requires people to be thoroughly convinced, have deep knowledge and understanding of how they must act in different circumstances (Nails, 26). I agree with Socrates hedonistic analysis that people’s voluntary actions must be ‘subjectively’ rational since an agent must act to attain a certain value and their actions must attain the highest value than the alternative courses of action. At this point, it is clear that ignorance leads to voluntary errors since human beings cannot do something that they believe is entirely bad (Brickhouse and Smith, 1989).This proposition can be demonstrated by the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela for close to three decades and the end of racial discrimination in the society. Nelson Mandela fought against the discrimination of Blacks in South Africa since he believed that such practices were unjust even in jail and ultimately chose to embrace reconciliation and forgiveness after he became the President in a multi-cultural democratic South Africa. In this case, good people suffer no harm as demonstrated by Mandela who kept his own moral principles and ethics of justice even after acquiring power. Conclusion I agree with Socrates that vengeance is always unjust and wrong since it leads to more harm than good in the society. It is true that the health of both the body and soul is important thus vengeance will destroy the good life of man. Socrates agrees with Crito that good life is honourable and evil is dishourable thus people should not do wrong. Socrates is not trying to escape justice or avoid injury to self, but is demonstrating care for others I the society. In this case, Socrates wonders what will happen to his children if he escapes from trial. In Plato’s dialogue Meno, Socrates critically demonstrates that virtue is knowledge and beneficial to human beings since it lead to happiness. Socrates goes further to clarify that evils are committed due to ignorance since understanding makes people understand the negative implications of the evil. Furthermore, a just person can suffer no harm despite Socrates been put to death. In this argument, Socrates pointed out that vengeance degrades self and people harm themselves if they act unjustly. References: Bensen, H. ed., (1992). Essays on the Philosophy of Socrates, Oxford, Oxford University Brickhouse, T. and Smith, N. (1989). Socrates on Trial, Princeton, Princeton University Cambridge University Press. Colaiaco, J.A. (2013). Socrates against Athens: philosophy on trial. New York: Routledge. Guthrie, W. K. C., (1969). A History of Greek Philosophy III, 2: Socrates, Cambridge, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/26. Nails, D., “Socrates”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009, Plato. (1981). Five Dialogues, trans. G.M.A. Grube, Indianapolis and Cambridge, Hackett Publishing Press. Weiss, R. (1998). Socrates dissatisfied: an analysis of Plato’s Crito. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More