The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates is known for a technique called the Socratic Method, in which the teacher leads the student through a process of questioning to come to a logically valid conclusion.

Born in 469 B.C., Socrates is considered one of the founding fathers of Western philosophy, even though he left no writings behind and very little is known about him. Everything that is known of his teachings is found in the works of his students, like Plato. Much of Plato’s writings are dialogues between Socrates and his students.

Using the Socratic method, answer the following questions:

Part 1

  • What do you think of Socrates’ conclusion that no person knowingly does evil, and therefore, all evil is ignorance?
  • Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you disagree, state why.

Part 2

  • If people accepted that all evil is ignorance, what implications would that have on the justice system?
  • How would prison sentencing or the death penalty be affected?
  • Discuss with 2 or more classmates their opinions and whether or not you agree or disagree with their statements.

Week 3 Philosophy DB response to classmates:

Michael Williams              

 

According to the Socratic Method, when it comes to defining and redefining key terms a human are often unclear about the definitions of their own words. I agree with the Socratic Method. Why? It is true, through a human mind at the time during the event taking place that he or she does not realize in their state of mind of what they was during at that time, but when are back into reality, they realize what they have done, and then they try to hide it by denying covering up the fact of the situation. ( Soccio, D.J. 1995).                                                                                                                                                                                                               Ignorance is an abnormal behavior activity in the human brain and if all people was accepted this type of behavior then there is no need for a justice system, police, lawyers, and judges who all serve and protect the innocent and there will be more crime in our systems. Therefore, there will be more killings, robberies, and rapes going on during these current event taking place in our society. Furthermore there will be no more prison or death penalty in our system and this will affect our society because of this. Although, I disagree with the death penalty because of our amendments right and also so does not bring back the victim by taking another life, but this still affect society because the good will be afraid of the bad.

Soccio, D.J. (1995). Archetypes of Wisdom, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Jacqueline Stephens              

Part 1:

Through the dialog in the M.U.S.E. Socratic Method, I agree with the conclusion Meno and Socrates had: No one desires evil (Soccis, D.J., 1995).  In regards to the question if I agree that no person knowingly does evil and that evil is ignorant, I disagree.  Although some people may not be able to comprehend the impact or reality of the acts they are committing, most people can.   Those people are able to comprehend what evil act they are committing, that it is wrong, and is not an act of ignorance.  I believe that a majority of people can choose to do evil or do good.  An example would be in the school setting.  I work as a Para Educator in the Special Needs room for 7th and 8th graders.  We have a wide variety of children in this room, ranging from mental illness to behavioral problems to just low scoring.  The children with mental illness often do not understand that when they are doing something wrong, being physical or verbally bullying someone, that it is wrong.  Many times they realize after the incident that what happened was indeed wrong.  Then there are children who act out because they want to.  They know that it will not get them anywhere, but they do it anyway.  There are always options in life, it is up to the individual to make the better choice.

 

Part 2:

If people accepted that evil is ignorant, then there really would be no need for a Justice System because all crime would be justified by ignorance, and what kind of punishment can you enforce on a person who does not know any better?  How fair is that to the victim and family that the crime was committed against?  And if there was a type of Justice System, would they prosecute all criminals the same?  How could they decide who was more or less ignorant to give a different sentence?  I believe the death penalty laws would be abolished due to the fact that if all sentencing was the same,  judges would not impose the death penalty, making our prisons even more crowded.  One thing I for sure believe is if the Justice System prosecuted all criminals due to ignorance, more crime would be committed.  If a criminal could say that he or she simply did not know any better, the occurrence of crime would increase.

 

Reference:

 

Soccio, D. J. (1995). Archetypes of wisdom. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

 

Kathryn F Artigue              

PART 1:

 

“No person knowingly does evil, and therefore, all evil is ignorance.”

 

I think that Socrates’ conclusion is valid, but is ultimately false. This type of argument is setup to automatically make the person stating it right, even if it has false premesis. Although, I can understand where this conclusion is coming from. In many cases, a person becomes so angry, or confused in a situation they can temporarily lose control, or even sanity, but this is not always the case.  Overall, I disagree with this conclusion.  I feel that some individuals know exactly what they are doing when they commit evil. There are some people who feel what they are doing, even though it is evil, is right. Also, evil sometimes gives individuals happiness. These people may be sick and need professional help and rehabilition. Regardless,it proves Sulcrates’ conclusion, and  I do not believe it to be true.

 

PART 2

 

If people believed that all evil is ignorance, the justice system would change dramatically. Everyone could plead temporary insanity, or go around sentencing using this conclusion. They could say that they did not know what they were doing was wrong. Although it may be true for some people, the ones who it is not true for would not suffer the consequences for what they have done. Lawyers would use this statement to get their client off the hook. It would be a huge loop hole in the justice system. Families and victims would not be served justice.  Prison sentencing would probably consist of short sentencing, and be based mainly on misdemeanors. How could a judge prosecute someone if they were unaware wht they were doing was evil. At the most, they would get a slp on the wrist with the least amount of sentencing. The death senetence would probably never be used. There would be no way for them to be convicted of a crime if they “did not know what they were doing was evil”.

 

References-

 

Solomon/Higgins. (2014). The Big Questions: A Short Introduction to Philosophy, 9th Edition. Cengage Learning

 

Stern, P. (2002). The philosophic importance of political life: On the “digression” in plato’s theaetetus. The American Political Science Review, 96(2), 275-289. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/214421417?accountid=144459

Week 3 IP (Due Sunday 5.18.14):

In philosophy, a logical error is called a logical fallacy. Thereare many logical fallacies to watch out for when making or evaluating a philosophical argument.

Demonstrate your understanding of each of the following logical fallacies by using your own words to provide a definition of the term and an argument of 2–3 sentences:

  1. Mere assertion
  2. Circular reasoning
  3. Ad hominem
  4. Red herring
  5. Pseudo-questions
  6. False cause
  7. Sweeping generalizations
  8. Slippery slope
  9. Equivocation or changing meanings

Please submit your assignment.

 

 

 

 

The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates is known for a technique called the Socratic Method, in which the teacher leads the student through a process of questioning to come to a logically valid conclusion.

Born in 469 B.C., Socrates is considered one of the founding fathers of Western philosophy, even though he left no writings behind and very little is known about him. Everything that is known of his teachings is found in the works of his students, like Plato. Much of Plato’s writings are dialogues between Socrates and his students.

Using the Socratic method, answer the following questions:

Part 1

  • What do you think of Socrates’ conclusion that no person knowingly does evil, and therefore, all evil is ignorance?
  • Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you disagree, state why.

Part 2

  • If people accepted that all evil is ignorance, what implications would that have on the justice system?
  • How would prison sentencing or the death penalty be affected?
  • Discuss with 2 or more classmates their opinions and whether or not you agree or disagree with their statements.

Week 3 Philosophy DB response to classmates:

Michael Williams              

 

According to the Socratic Method, when it comes to defining and redefining key terms a human are often unclear about the definitions of their own words. I agree with the Socratic Method. Why? It is true, through a human mind at the time during the event taking place that he or she does not realize in their state of mind of what they was during at that time, but when are back into reality, they realize what they have done, and then they try to hide it by denying covering up the fact of the situation. ( Soccio, D.J. 1995).                                                                                                                                                                                                               Ignorance is an abnormal behavior activity in the human brain and if all people was accepted this type of behavior then there is no need for a justice system, police, lawyers, and judges who all serve and protect the innocent and there will be more crime in our systems. Therefore, there will be more killings, robberies, and rapes going on during these current event taking place in our society. Furthermore there will be no more prison or death penalty in our system and this will affect our society because of this. Although, I disagree with the death penalty because of our amendments right and also so does not bring back the victim by taking another life, but this still affect society because the good will be afraid of the bad.

 

Soccio, D.J. (1995). Archetypes of Wisdom, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Jacqueline Stephens              

Part 1:

Through the dialog in the M.U.S.E. Socratic Method, I agree with the conclusion Meno and Socrates had: No one desires evil (Soccis, D.J., 1995).  In regards to the question if I agree that no person knowingly does evil and that evil is ignorant, I disagree.  Although some people may not be able to comprehend the impact or reality of the acts they are committing, most people can.   Those people are able to comprehend what evil act they are committing, that it is wrong, and is not an act of ignorance.  I believe that a majority of people can choose to do evil or do good.  An example would be in the school setting.  I work as a Para Educator in the Special Needs room for 7th and 8th graders.  We have a wide variety of children in this room, ranging from mental illness to behavioral problems to just low scoring.  The children with mental illness often do not understand that when they are doing something wrong, being physical or verbally bullying someone, that it is wrong.  Many times they realize after the incident that what happened was indeed wrong.  Then there are children who act out because they want to.  They know that it will not get them anywhere, but they do it anyway.  There are always options in life, it is up to the individual to make the better choice.

Part 2:

If people accepted that evil is ignorant, then there really would be no need for a Justice System because all crime would be justified by ignorance, and what kind of punishment can you enforce on a person who does not know any better?  How fair is that to the victim and family that the crime was committed against?  And if there was a type of Justice System, would they prosecute all criminals the same?  How could they decide who was more or less ignorant to give a different sentence?  I believe the death penalty laws would be abolished due to the fact that if all sentencing was the same,  judges would not impose the death penalty, making our prisons even more crowded.  One thing I for sure believe is if the Justice System prosecuted all criminals due to ignorance, more crime would be committed.  If a criminal could say that he or she simply did not know any better, the occurrence of crime would increase.

 

Reference:

 

Soccio, D. J. (1995). Archetypes of wisdom. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

 

Kathryn F Artigue              

PART 1:

 

“No person knowingly does evil, and therefore, all evil is ignorance.”

I think that Socrates’ conclusion is valid, but is ultimately false. This type of argument is setup to automatically make the person stating it right, even if it has false premesis. Although, I can understand where this conclusion is coming from. In many cases, a person becomes so angry, or confused in a situation they can temporarily lose control, or even sanity, but this is not always the case.  Overall, I disagree with this conclusion.  I feel that some individuals know exactly what they are doing when they commit evil. There are some people who feel what they are doing, even though it is evil, is right. Also, evil sometimes gives individuals happiness. These people may be sick and need professional help and rehabilition. Regardless,it proves Sulcrates’ conclusion, and  I do not believe it to be true.

 

PART 2

 

If people believed that all evil is ignorance, the justice system would change dramatically. Everyone could plead temporary insanity, or go around sentencing using this conclusion. They could say that they did not know what they were doing was wrong. Although it may be true for some people, the ones who it is not true for would not suffer the consequences for what they have done. Lawyers would use this statement to get their client off the hook. It would be a huge loop hole in the justice system. Families and victims would not be served justice.  Prison sentencing would probably consist of short sentencing, and be based mainly on misdemeanors. How could a judge prosecute someone if they were unaware wht they were doing was evil. At the most, they would get a slp on the wrist with the least amount of sentencing. The death senetence would probably never be used. There would be no way for them to be convicted of a crime if they “did not know what they were doing was evil”.

 

References-

 

Solomon/Higgins. (2014). The Big Questions: A Short Introduction to Philosophy, 9th Edition. Cengage Learning

 

Stern, P. (2002). The philosophic importance of political life: On the “digression” in plato’s theaetetus. The American Political Science Review, 96(2), 275-289. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/214421417?accountid=144459

Week 3 IP (Due Sunday 5.18.14):

In philosophy, a logical error is called a logical fallacy. Thereare many logical fallacies to watch out for when making or evaluating a philosophical argument.

Demonstrate your understanding of each of the following logical fallacies by using your own words to provide a definition of the term and an argument of 2–3 sentences:

  1. Mere assertion
  2. Circular reasoning
  3. Ad hominem
  4. Red herring
  5. Pseudo-questions
  6. False cause
  7. Sweeping generalizations
  8. Slippery slope
  9. Equivocation or changing meanings

Please submit your assignment.

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply