Assignment :
Part. 1
You are to challenge Socrates' argument against the existence of intentional evil. This argument appears in his defense against the charge that he corrupts the youth. As shown in the class notes, the argument runes as follows:
Argument against the existence of evil.
1. Wicked persons harm those around them. (Assumption)
2. Harming other creates harmful people around you. (Assumption)
3. Harming others causes harm to oneself. (follows from 1, 2)
4. No one wants to be harmed (assumption)
5. No one intentionally harms others (follows from 3, 4)
6. Therefore, I corrupt the youth unintentionally or I do not corrupt the youth.
Remainder of Argument
7. If I corrupt the youth unintentionally, then I should be educated of my ignorance. (Assumption)
8. If I do not corrupt the youth, then I am innocent. (Assumption)
9. Either I should be educated of my ignorance or I am innocent. (6, 7, 8)
Line 5 is Socrates' initial conclusion that "no one intentionally harms others." You are to contest this conclusion. In order to do so, you need to show why Socrates is mistaken in his argument. This is different from merely disagreeing with the conclusion. In other words, you need to show why either his reasoning is flawed or one of his assumptions is mistaken. You are to post your criticism in Discussion.What this assignment and argument are discussing is the nature of evil, why people do harmful things to others. The emphasis on the evaluation for this assignment is on how well you are able to show why Socrates is mistaken in reaching his conclusion on intentional evil.
Then you are to respond to the response made by someone else by defending Socrates. This means, you are to act as if you were Socrates and writing what you think Socrates would say in his defense. If you think the criticisms is indefensible, you are to show why you think Socrates has no possible response.
Part. 2
Then you are to respond to the response made by someone else by defending Socrates. This means, you are to act as if you were Socrates and writing what you think Socrates would say in his defense. If you think the criticisms is indefensible, you are to show why you think Socrates has no possible response.
This is someone else response:
Socrates belief that "no one intentionally harms others" is misguided attempt to provide a sticking point for his argument. Knowing right from wrong is something we know at an early age. It is a fundamental concept that is clear to understand by the time we reach puberty. Those who do not fully grasp this concept, do so because they wish not to. People do harm every day. It is part of being a human being. Maybe this kind of people is who Socrates refers to when he states wicked people hurt those around them. What makes a person wicked? Is it their willingness to disobey the law?
Socrates argument is that one who intentionally harms others isn't out to seek virtue. Instead, they are unwise of virtue, which leads them to evil behavior. The terms "good" and "evil" can mean different things to different people. Socrates has stated that he is no wiser than any other man. Why does he feel his definition of evil behavior is more accurate than anyone else? Humans, even the best of us, can have evil tendencies. Something as small as kicking a dog that barks too much is an example of this. We are well aware of our wrongdoing; we just don't care at certain times in our life.
Reference: Plato’s Apology