Ethical Theory Test 1 Notes

Socrates’ argument (against Polus) that tyrants have the least power of all (premises)

• Premises: memorize: “Want GOOD → mistake → no power.”

  • We ultimately want what is good for us, not merely whatever action we happen to perform.

  • Killing/exiling someone is only something a tyrant wants because he thinks it will benefit him.

  • If it actually harms him, he got the action he saw fit to do, but not what he really wanted: his good.

  • Power is supposed to be something good/beneficial.

  • Therefore, someone who repeatedly acts against his own good does not have genuine power.

Objection and rebuttal to the Socrates ‘tyrants have least power’

Objection: “Come on. If I can kill, imprison, or exile anyone I want, obviously I have power.”

Rebuttal: That is only control over others, not Socrates’ “true power.” If your choices make your own life/soul worse, your ability to carry them out is not beneficial power.

Socrates’ argument that it is worse to do an injustice than to suffer one

• Claim: Polus begins.

  • Suffering injustice = more harmful

    Doing injustice = more shameful/contemptible

• Premises: Socrates’ premises — memorize: “Shameful = painful OR harmful.”

  • Something is more contemptible because it is either more unpleasant or more harmful.

  • Doing injustice is more contemptible than suffering it.

  • But doing injustice is clearly not more unpleasant for the person doing it.

  • So it must be more harmful.

  • Therefore, doing injustice is worse than suffering injustice.

Objection and rebuttal to Socrates’ argument that it is worse to do an injustice than to suffer one

Objection: “Doing injustice is only shameful by convention/law. By nature, being weak enough to suffer injustice is more shameful.”

Rebuttal: Being strong enough to dominate others does not establish that domination is good. Genuine goodness concerns the order and health of the soul: justice and self-control make the soul good, while injustice and lack of discipline make it bad

Socrates’ argument that it is worst of all to do an injustice and have it go unpunished

• Claim: Doing wrong is bad; doing wrong and never being corrected is even worse.

• Premises: memorize: “Crime = disease; punishment = medicine.”

  • Injustice is a disease/corruption of the soul.

  • Justice/punishment can correct that corruption, like medicine treats bodily disease.

  • Punishment may hurt, just as medical treatment hurts.

  • But being cured is better than remaining sick.

  • Therefore:

    • best = don’t do injustice

    • next best = do injustice + get corrected

    • worst = do injustice + remain unpunished

Objection and rebuttal to Socrates’ argument that it is worst of all to do an injustice and have it go unpunished

Objection: “But the criminal who never gets caught may be rich, powerful, comfortable, and happy.”

Rebuttal: Those are external goods. Socrates says the person still possesses a corrupted soul, so what looks like success is actually misery. Your notes frame injustice as disordering the wrongdoer’s soul regardless of external gains.

Socrates’ critique of equating better with stronger

• Claim (Callicles): Nature says the stronger/better should rule and have more.

• Premises: memorize: “Many > one.”

  • Callicles says better/superior = stronger.

  • But the many are physically/politically stronger than one individual.

  • The many create laws saying equality and justice are good.

  • So if stronger = better, then the laws of the masses must be naturally superior too.

  • That contradicts Callicles’ attack on conventional morality.

Objection and rebuttal to Socrates’ critique of equating better with stronger

Objection: “The naturally superior person shouldn’t restrain himself. Real greatness means having huge desires and being able to satisfy them.”

Rebuttal: Then being “superior” cannot merely mean dominating others. A genuinely excellent person must also be capable of governing himself.

Socrates’ critique of equating good with pleasure (i.e. critique of Callicles hedonism)

• Claim (Callicles): Happy life = maximize desires + satisfy them.

• Premises: memorize: “Good pleasures / bad pleasures.”

  • If pleasure = good, then every pleasure should be good simply because it is pleasurable.

  • But Callicles eventually admits there are good pleasures and bad pleasures.

  • A bad pleasure is judged bad because of something other than its pleasantness.

  • Therefore, there must be a standard of goodness separate from pleasure. So pleasure ≠ good.

Objection/rebuttal to critique of equating good with pleasure

• Objection: “Fine, pleasure might not equal all goodness, but pleasurable experiences obviously contribute to happiness.”

• Rebuttal: Socrates doesn’t need to prove that pleasure is never good. He only needs to show: Pleasure alone cannot tell us what is good. Some pleasures improve you; others harm you. So goodness has to be the standard by which we judge pleasures. One-liner: If some pleasures are bad, pleasure cannot equal good.

Explain Socrates’ arguments about self-control to broader argument concerning justice, happiness and the health of the soul

• Argument on self-control:

  • memorize the LEAKING JAR:

    • An uncontrolled person constantly creates new desires.

    • Satisfying one desire only creates the need to satisfy another.

    • So that person is like a jar with holes: always filling, never full.

    • A self-controlled person can regulate desires.

    • That produces order in the soul.

    • An ordered soul is just/good.

    • A good soul = genuine happiness.

Objection/rebuttal to Socrates’ arguments about self-control to broader argument concerning justice, happiness and the health of the soul

• Objections to self control:

  • “Self-control sounds repressive. Why not embrace natural desires instead?”

• Rebuttal to objection:

  • Self-control does not mean having zero desires. It means desires are governed rather than governing you. Otherwise you become permanently dependent on obtaining the next pleasure.