Rationalism to Existentialism: Socrates' Thoughts about Wise People - Assignment Example

Is Socrates Right to Claim that a Wise Person Will Always Act Well? Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Is Socrates Right to Claim that a Wise Person Will Always Act Well? Introduction The meaning of a person acting well or not acting well is a contentious statement in itself. This becomes complicated even further with the introduction of the statement by Socrates that the wise will always act well. To negate this statement, we arrive with the observation that the foolish will always act badly. The statement from a face value has truth in it based on the fact that wise people tend to act well, but at a time this has not been the case. The same can be said of the foolish in opposite, but also at a time from various historical perspectives they have acted contrary. Moreover, when we talk of acting well is it for self preservation or as a service to humanity? Therefore to affirm or dispute the phrase as postulated by Socrates, the aim of this discourse will be to interrogate the claim advanced by Socrates that a wise person will always act well by examining the pros and cons of this statement so as to present finding on the same. The Socrates on Acting Well In brief, let’s examine the Socrates belief since it is important in contextualising the subsequent discussions. Socrates observes that virtue is important ingredient of knowledge and that can’t be wise without being virtuous. The basis of this is that knowing what is right would make one easily apply the same. Contextualising the Contention There are situations when those who are considered wise have not acted well and at a time acted well. Argument that can be used to provoke an academical thought and not a partisan or personal political view on the said argument is the United States of America in collaboration with its allies deciding to invade Iraq of hosting weapons of mass destruction which were never found. Another perspective is the involvement of NATO in Libya under the guise of humanitarian intervention. The other one is the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing in world war two where in marked the end of World War two, but caused deaths. The question that lingers in one mind is that the leaders of these countries were wise people. Lastly, is where business organisation makes exorbitant profits in deprived economies? However, the question is did they mean well to serve the humanity or they did this for their own country’s interest? The best theoretical frameworks that can be used to analyse these phrase are tied to decision making process, consequentialism ethics, non-consequentialism ethics, good faith & bad faith concept and problems of induction. Further, the decisions will be explained if they are for self preservation or a service to humanity. Affirming the Socrates Statement The first approach that can be used to affirm the observation postulated by Socrates is on the basis of non-consequentialism theory of Kantian ethics. Kantian ethics calls all to do well. The same can be linked with the concept of good faith with advocates for individuals to observe honesty and trustworthiness in their decisions and avoid double speak (Flynn, 2009, p.84). this approach also advocates for egalitarian approaches. The other perspective of academically understanding good faith is to contrast it with the bad faith principle. In academics, the term bad faith can be traced from the philosophical works of Jean-Paul Sartre who did a lot of analyses in relation to double speak (Solomon, 1972, p.288). Affirming that a wise person will always act well is seen in various humanitarian interventions which are meant to serve humanity rather that self actualisation. Where this argument of wise people always acting well is when leaders engage in selfless activities so as to better the lives of their citizens or those of other nations. This kind of thought can be affirmed by humanitarian intervention. To quote Robert (1993, p.426) cited in Kardan (2001, p.1) states that humanitarian intervention is “military intervention in a state, without the approval of its authorities, and with the purpose of preventing widespread suffering or death among the inhabitants”. Humanitarian interventions is anchored on the thought that there is a linkage between human rights violation and international security and thus it is rightful to police other nations who might not mean well for humanity which all people are called to serve (Kardas, 2001, p.1). Falsifying the Socrates Statement From the statement presented by Socrates, the emerging theme is that it is a generalisation of observation derived from specific instances that all wise people always act well. The role of this section is to dispute this fact. The first entry point of disputing this argument is based on the concept term as “problem of induction”. “Problem of induction”, is equally a philosophical argument that aims at questioning why we should generalise or regularise things and use it to infer of other possibilities (Hempel, 1981, p.393). Lange (2008, p.45 & 46), observes that inductive process does not consider contradiction as its core concern. An inductive process can be true while the conclusion turns out to be false. This means the process isn’t truth preserving. Hume questions the fact that is there rational anchoring for inductive inferences. He posits that why would anyone have confidence on something he or she has not observed (Lange, 2008, p.43 & 44). This implies that there is chance of future truth not representing the past. The next point that can be used to counteract the argument presented by Socrates is the theory of bounded rationality that assumes that every rational human being who is able to engage his or her cognitive faculties has to be purposeful and goal oriented (Tarter & Hoy, 1998, p.215). Rationality as an approach to decision making is closely related to economic theories of choice (Hodgkinson and Starbuck, 2008, p. 457). This means they are made with wise people, but who at a time might not mean well. Certain decision does not imply acting well, but exploiting opportunities. For instance, business organisations aim at gaining market leadership by creating value and various marketing mix. These approaches at a time are not meant to be well for the customers, but to improve the sales of the company. To affirm this, Ireland & Hitt (2005, p.68) postulates that strategic decisions can be regarded as taking advantage of organizations strengths, internal resources, capabilities and core competencies. The above kind of approach is affirmed by consequentialism theories like utilitarian which advocates for maximisation of pleasure rather than pain. The utilitarian principle of utility seeks to either approve or disapprove the actions of individuals depending on whether or not they promote/increase the amount of an individual’s happiness (one’s interests); (faculty.stedwards.edu, 2002). The question then is these people wise or not. The answer is that they are wise, but they are exploiting opportunities for self preservation or organisational benefit. Conclusion The emerging finding out of the statement advanced by Socrates is a two way result. The first observation is that it is true that wise person will always act well. This is seen in cases where people make decisions that benefits humanity. On the other hand, we have wise people who have made decisions that are for self preservation or actualisation. This does not necessarily make them foolish. The basis of this is based on the fact that survival of individual is tied on how well they are able to exploit opportunities. References Faculty.stedwards.edu. 2002. Normative Ethical Principles and Theories: A Brief Overview. Retrieved, November 10, 2012 from: http://faculty.stedwards.edu/ursery/norm.htm. Flynn, T. 2009. Existentialism. New York: Sterling Publishing Company. Hempel, C. G. 1981. Turns in the Evolution of the Problem of Induction. Retrieved on November 10, 2012 from: http://www.psiquadrat.de/downloads/hempel1981.pdf. Hodgkinson, G.P. & Starbuck, W.I. (2008). The Oxford handbook of Organisational Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ireland, R. D. & Hitt, M. A. 2005. Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Executive, 19 (4): 63-77. Kardas, S. 2001. Humanitarian Intervention: The Evolution of the Idea and Practice. Journal of the International Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 1-11. Lange, M. 2008. Hume and The Problem of Induction in Gabbay, D., Hartmann, S. & Woods, J. 2008. Handbook of the History of Logic, Volume 10: Inductive Logic. Elsevier BV. Solomon, R. C. 1972. From rationalism to existentialism: the existentialists and their nineteenth- century backgrounds. New York: Rowman & Little field. Tarter, C .J. & Hoy, W. K. 1998. Toward a contingency theory of decision making. Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.212-228. Read More