Here's another Bible verse from Rev. Deckard
"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." - James 4:17 This implies that those who don't know, don't sin and this seems to line up with Meno's conception of evil.

Here's another Bible verse from Rev. Deckard
"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." - James 4:17 This implies that those who don't know, don't sin and this seems to line up with Meno's conception of evil.

In Meno, Socrates says that there are those who know evils to be evils and desire them still. Yet there are some who do not know that the evils are, in fact, evils, and believe them to do them good. The latter are still considered virtuous, according to Meno, to whom virtue is the desire and power of attaining good.

Going off of this Socratic view, I think that the only ones who can truly be called "evil" are those who know the good, but do the bad anyway. those who do not know the good cannot be called evil, as the bad is all that they know. those who are virtuous are those who know the good and the bad, and choose to do the good. (lil bit of aristotle in there too, I guess.)

Where does Meno say anything like that?

An opposing view is that is doesn't make any sense for a person to act in a way that they themselves believe is evil.. by the definiton of evil... to do wrong, to fail, to miss the mark or target.

Any such action would be conceptually kin to suicide. I think a stoic view is that evil and disease are basically the same thing... a creature failing to follow its own nature which should lead it to its greatest success. Such a way of being is a dead-end street.

Anybody seen the movie Titus Andronicus with Anthony Hopkins? It's fabulous.

In Meno, Socrates says that there are those who know evils to be evils and desire them still. Yet there are some who do not know that the evils are, in fact, evils, and believe them to do them good. The latter are still considered virtuous, according to Meno, to whom virtue is the desire and power of attaining good.

Socrates: Do you think, Meno, that anyone, knowing that bad things are bad, nevertheless desires them? - I certainly do.

Socrates: What do mean by desiring? Is it to secure for oneself? - What else?

Socrates: Does he think that the bad things benefit him who possesses them, or does he know they harm him?

Meno: There are some who believe that the bad things benefit them, others who know that the bad things harm them.

Socrates: And do you think that those who believe that bad things benefit them know that they are bad?

Meno: No, that I cannot altogether believe.

Socrates: So it is clear then that those who do not know things to be bad do not desire what is bad, but they desire those things that they believe to be good but that are in fact bad. It follows that those who have no knowledge of these things and believe them to be good clearly desire good things. Is that not so? - It is likely.

Here's another Bible verse from Rev. Deckard
"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." - James 4:17 This implies that those who don't know, don't sin and this seems to line up with Meno's conception of evil.

I'm looking at the text. I think Dosed may have missed the quote. However, this is forgivable because my text presents this in a slightly confusing way. Meno's quick answers are not printed on a separate line nor are these quick answers labeled "Meno:". This is likely just a space saving decision by the editor or maybe it's in the original text. Here's some of the text as it appears in my Complete works of Plato starting around 77c:

Socrates does not say that there are those who know evils to be evils and desire them too. Meno says something like this but Socrates changes his mind fairly quickly.

I think Socrates is generally consistent in the opinion (in Meno and other dialogues) that someone cannot do bad/evil/unvirtuous unless they are ignorant how to avoid the evil act or ignorant of the act's evilness. Socrates would say that evil does not know that it is evil.

Socrates teaches that those acts which we call "evil" stem from this very ignorance.



So we can imagine Socrates having a similar conversation about the nature of sin with the author of James as he did with Meno.

Socrates had the theory that doing evil always harms the doer far more than the victim. And that it is better to suffer evil than to do evil. He inferred from this that no one would do evil who believed he was doing evil, since no man would knowingly harm himself. Obviously, this depends on his theory that doing evil always harms the doer more than the victim. If you believe that, you will believe anything.

Is it better to do evil than to be the victim of of some evil act? Would you rather be evil than a victim?

It would depend on what the evil was, and what the victim suffered.

Can you give a few examples of acts that you consider to be evil that you would prefer doing rather than being the victim of?

I imagine some of them know they are doing evil, and they don't care. And others don't know it. What makes you think they don't know they are doing evil?

Man can not do what he believes to be wrong. Man can only act on that which he has first justified.

You can test this yourself. Find something you believe to be wrong - then try to do it. Don't forget - the desire to prove me incorrect is justification

Do not mistake someone changing their minds later as evidence that they knew themselves to be evil at the time of evil actions.

Lost1

But even when I was a child, I stole cookies, and I believed that was wrong. Didn't you?

I think the Christians would say that a person's willingness to do evil is an issue between that person and God. It's really nobody else's business, except for the way that we share this world, we're all related, and we support each other as best we can.

What has that to do with whether people who do evil know they are doing evil? Anything? Or does that matter?

I'm looking at the situation from your point of view. The thing is Ken, I'm not you... I'm me. So when I go to understand your viewpoint, what I end up with is a war-crimes tribunal.

I don't know what you'd see if you looked at the topic through my eyes. I'm guessing that you can't do that. Nevertheless... you're not talking to yourself here, are you?

I still don't know what you wrote has to do with the topic. Not whether it is through your eyes, my eyes, or the eyes of God. So, rather than being defensive about it, why not just explain it to me. If you can.

Assuming that there is such a thing as evil, do evil people necessarily know that they are evil? Can a person that does not know that s/he is evil still be called evil? Can a person be evil if s/he doesn't believe there is such a thing as evil? Well you get the point.

For this discussion please assume provisionally that there is such a thing as evil.

I appreciate your insistence that posters remain on topic. The OP:


.

Some people think they are doing good when really they are doing evil.

But I think there are plenty of people who know what they are doing is wrong. They just don't care enough, and act selfishly. Or rationalize it in some other way. And maybe feel guilty sometimes.