Socrates: Virtue And Knowledge

Socrates believed that there was an important correlation between virtue and knowledge, that knowledge is necessary and sufficient for virtuous conduct. Two arguments used to support this idea are as follows:

All rational desires are focused on what is good; therefore if one knows what is good, he or she not act contrary.
If one has non-rational desires, but knowledge is sufficient to overcome them, so if one is knowledgeable of goodness, he will not act irrationally.

Socrates held that to excercise the virtues properly, one must have knowledge of them. He felt that one can misuse a virtue; for example, one can have either too much or too little generosity, and neither one is virtuous. One must know how to use the virtue of generosity, as well as courage, honesty, and loyalty, etc. This idea is known as Socratic Intellectualism which was later revived after Socrates' and practiced by the Stoics.

So it follows that according to Socrates, no one can act wrongly with proper knowledge of virtue. This also entails that all wrongdoing must be considered involuntary because it is caused by ignorance of virtue. This is known as the "Socratic Paradox."

Socrates recognizes this "paradox," and agrees with its implications. In Protagorus, Socrates states,

"My opinion is more or less this: no wise man believes that anyone sins willingly or willingly perpetrates any base or evil act; they know very well that every base or evil action is committed involuntarily." Socrates also acknowledged the implication that no man has the power to have complete knowledge of virtue, and therefore no man can be completely good. He, himself, does not claim to have complete knowledge of virtue. His belief would also persuade people to seek knowledge and avoid ignorance. Another belief that supported his argument was that no man would purposefully destroy his soul, so any action that did damage the soul had to be involuntary. Socrates thought that people should question some of their moral views because people that have the wrong beliefs of virtue cannot do what is good.

Aristotle felt that each virtue was a science in itself, so that knowledge of that virtue is being virtuous. Which is similiar to Socrates' belief but Aristotle did have objections against it. He felt that it did not leave room for weakness of will, lack of self-control, and the power of desire and passion. Aristotle felt that one's desire can overpower knowledge of a virtue, even if the desire conflicts with it. Socrates would have argued that one did not have true knowledge of the virtue if he or she was persuaded to act contrary. Plato also felt that it neglected the idea of moral weakness, but under Socrates' idea moral weakness would be equivalent to ignorance of virtue. One would not choose to be morally weak, it would be involuntary; like the response to Aristotles argument, if one had true knowledge of virtue, one would not be morally weak. Furthermore, Socrates' teachings leave no room for one to see and approve of the better course of action and then do the worse.

Jason Aylward