Socrates and Plato's Views on Failure to Act in Accordance to One's Best Decision
1. Imagine that you recently saw a documentary that is highly critical of factory farming. You found a number of the ethical and health considerations presented in the documentary persuasive, and you decide that it is best not to eat meat any more. Some time later, on a trip to Philadelphia, you pass by Pat's King of Steaks and succumb to the temptation to eat a delicious Philly Cheese Steak. How might Socrates' view (as presented by the character Socrates in the Protagoras) explain your failure to act according to the decision that you formed when you watched the documentary? How might Plato's view (as presented by the character Socrates in the Republic) explain your action? To what extent are Socrates' and Plato's explanations of your action different? Which explanation do you find more persuasive, and why?
2. In Nicomachean Ethics I.7, Aristotle claims that “the human good proves to be activity of soul in accord with excellence” (1098a16-17) and, more specifically, an activity “with or requiring a rational principle” (1098a7-8). How does Aristotle reach this definition of the human good? In your answer, you should explain the relationship between a thing's function, its excellence (or virtue), and its good, as well as the steps of the argument Aristotle uses to reach this conclusion about the specific good of a human being. Where do you think that the argument is most vulnerable to criticism? Do you think that Aristotle's view can be successfully defended? Why or why not?
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle’s Views
Name:
Institution:
Course Title:
Instructor:
Date:
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle’s Views
Question #1 Socrates and Plato’s Views on Failure to Act in Accordance to One’s Best Decision
Having watched a documentary that criticizes factory farming, one is likely to be persuaded of the ethical and health implications of meat consumption presented in the documentary. As a consequence, he or she can decide to refrain from eating meat altogether in order to avoid the health complications and ethical issues associated with it. To this end, Socrates has an explanation for such action. Particularly, he holds that virtue is knowledge in the sense that one who understands the things’ nature “knows what to do” (Clark, 2015; Rayan, 2014, p. 152). From the perspective of this argument, it is evident that the documentary serves as a source of knowledge, and having informed one of the health risks and considerations relating to factory farming, he or she decided to make an informed decision. In light of this, refraining from meat consumption seems to be the best decision in the backdrop of such considerations.
However, one may fail to act in accordance to the decision made earlier. Particularly, he or she may end up consuming meat, contrary to his or her earlier decision not to do so. Socrates has an explanation to such failure. In this regard, Socrates suggests that one must transform virtues into their respective essences in order to act accordingly (Rayan, 2014). While an attributes is interactive and changeable, an essence is unchangeable, stable, and independent. In other words, one needs to transform the dynamic attributes into unchangeable, stable, and independent essences. Thus, it is arguably true that though the decision not to consume meat was a good virtue, it was not effectively transformed into an essence. As a result, one relapsed to his or her former behavior by consuming Philly Cheese Steak. However, Socrates in very critical of the popular belief that people are readily overcome by pleasures. He holds that such pleasures are epimethic phenomena that are not only motivated by the current instincts but also ignorant of the potential future consequence (Rayan, 2014). As such, taking Philly Cheese Steak does not mean that one was overcome by pleasure but rather that he or she was motivated by the existing instincts while ignoring the long-term health and ethical implications of the act.
Similarly, the action is also consistent with Plato’s arguments in his text, “The Republic,” as portrayed by Socrates. In this text, Plato provides new insight into the soul of humans. Such insight portrays the human souls as having three distinct parts: appetite, spirit, and reason (Kamtekar, n.d). While such parts have their own desires, the desires in both the spirited and the appetite, parts are not centered on what is deemed bad and good but they are rather independent of beliefs regarding the good and the bad. Socrates holds that one cannot act contrary to his or her better judgment. Instead, reason can get confused under certain circumstances, and hence follow a particular judgment other than the better judgment. Relating this argument to the case scenario, we can argue that one’s reason could be confused by visiting Pat’s King of Steaks and they ended up eating Philly Cheese Steak, contrary to their earlier decision. In this light, Pat’s King of Steaks constitutes the circumstance that corrupted one’s reason.
However, Plato refutes the argument that failure to reason can make one to act contrary to his or her true belief. Instead, he holds that the case cannot be regarded as solely intellect...