The document summarizes a discussion between Socrates and his students on the nature of evil and ignorance. It discusses Socrates' view that no one knowingly does evil, and that all evil is due to ignorance. It then examines the implications this view would have on the justice system, such as whether there would still be a need for prisons or the death penalty if all evil was considered ignorance. Several students provide their perspectives, with some agreeing and others disagreeing with Socrates' conclusion. They debate how the justice system would be affected if people accepted that all evil stems from ignorance.

1. Greek philosopher
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates is known for a technique called the Socratic
Method, in which the teacher leads the student through a process of questioning to come to
a logically valid conclusion.Born in 469 B.C., Socrates is considered one of the founding
fathers of Western philosophy, even though he left no writings behind and very little is
known about him. Everything that is known of his teachings is found in the works of his
students, like Plato. Much of Plato’s writings are dialogues between Socrates and his
students.Using the Socratic method, answer the following questions:Part 1What do you
think of Socrates’ conclusion that no person knowingly does evil, and therefore, all evil is
ignorance?Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you disagree, state why.Part 2If people
accepted that all evil is ignorance, what implications would that have on the justice
system?How would prison sentencing or the death penalty be affected?Discuss with 2 or
more classmates their opinions and whether or not you agree or disagree with their
statements.Week 3 Philosophy DB response to classmates:Michael
Williams According to the Socratic Method, when it comes to defining and redefining
key terms a human are often unclear about the definitions of their own words. I agree with
the Socratic Method. Why? It is true, through a human mind at the time during the event
taking place that he or she does not realize in their state of mind of what they was during at
that time, but when are back into reality, they realize what they have done, and then they
try to hide it by denying covering up the fact of the situation. ( Soccio, D.J.
1995).
Ignorance is an abnormal behavior activity in the human brain and if
all people was accepted this type of behavior then there is no need for a justice system,
police, lawyers, and judges who all serve and protect the innocent and there will be more
crime in our systems. Therefore, there will be more killings, robberies, and rapes going on
during these current event taking place in our society. Furthermore there will be no more
prison or death penalty in our system and this will affect our society because of this.
Although, I disagree with the death penalty because of our amendments right and also so
does not bring back the victim by taking another life, but this still affect society because the
good will be afraid of the bad.Soccio, D.J. (1995). Archetypes of Wisdom, Belmont, CA:
WadsworthJacqueline Stephens Part 1:Through the dialog in the M.U.S.E. Socratic
Method, I agree with the conclusion Meno and Socrates had: No one desires evil (Soccis, D.J.,
1995). In regards to the question if I agree that no person knowingly does evil and that evil
is ignorant, I disagree. Although some people may not be able to comprehend the impact or

2. reality of the acts they are committing, most people can. Those people are able to
comprehend what evil act they are committing, that it is wrong, and is not an act of
ignorance. I believe that a majority of people can choose to do evil or do good. An example
would be in the school setting. I work as a Para Educator in the Special Needs room for 7th
and 8th graders. We have a wide variety of children in this room, ranging from mental
illness to behavioral problems to just low scoring. The children with mental illness often do
not understand that when they are doing something wrong, being physical or verbally
bullying someone, that it is wrong. Many times they realize after the incident that what
happened was indeed wrong. Then there are children who act out because they want
to. They know that it will not get them anywhere, but they do it anyway. There are always
options in life, it is up to the individual to make the better choice. Part 2:If people accepted
that evil is ignorant, then there really would be no need for a Justice System because all
crime would be justified by ignorance, and what kind of punishment can you enforce on a
person who does not know any better? How fair is that to the victim and family that the
crime was committed against? And if there was a type of Justice System, would they
prosecute all criminals the same? How could they decide who was more or less ignorant to
give a different sentence? I believe the death penalty laws would be abolished due to the
fact that if all sentencing was the same, judges would not impose the death penalty, making
our prisons even more crowded. One thing I for sure believe is if the Justice System
prosecuted all criminals due to ignorance, more crime would be committed. If a criminal
could say that he or she simply did not know any better, the occurrence of crime would
increase. Reference: Soccio, D. J. (1995). Archetypes of wisdom. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth. Kathryn F Artigue PART 1: No person knowingly does evil, and
therefore, all evil is ignorance. I think that Socrates’ conclusion is valid, but is ultimately
false. This type of argument is setup to automatically make the person stating it right, even
if it has false premesis. Although, I can understand where this conclusion is coming from. In
many cases, a person becomes so angry, or confused in a situation they can temporarily lose
control, or even sanity, but this is not always the case. Overall, I disagree with this
conclusion. I feel that some individuals know exactly what they are doing when they
commit evil. There are some people who feel what they are doing, even though it is evil, is
right. Also, evil sometimes gives individuals happiness. These people may be sick and need
professional help and rehabilition. Regardless,it proves Sulcrates’ conclusion, and I do not
believe it to be true. PART 2 If people believed that all evil is ignorance, the justice system
would change dramatically. Everyone could plead temporary insanity, or go around
sentencing using this conclusion. They could say that they did not know what they were
doing was wrong. Although it may be true for some people, the ones who it is not true for
would not suffer the consequences for what they have done. Lawyers would use this
statement to get their client off the hook. It would be a huge loop hole in the justice system.
Families and victims would not be served justice. Prison sentencing would probably consist
of short sentencing, and be based mainly on misdemeanors. How could a judge prosecute
someone if they were unaware wht they were doing was evil. At the most, they would get a
slp on the wrist with the least amount of sentencing. The death senetence would probably
never be used. There would be no way for them to be convicted of a crime if they did not

3. know what they were doing was evil . References- Solomon/Higgins. (2014). The Big
Questions: A Short Introduction to Philosophy, 9th Edition. Cengage Learning Stern, P.
(2002). The philosophic importance of political life: On the digression in plato’s
theaetetus. The American Political Science Review, 96(2), 275-289. Retrieved
fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/214421417?accountid=144459Week 3 IP (Due
Sunday 5.18.14):In philosophy, a logical error is called a logical fallacy. Thereare many
logical fallacies to watch out for when making or evaluating a philosophical
argument.Demonstrate your understanding of each of the following logical fallacies by using
your own words to provide a definition of the term and an argument of 2– 3 sentences:Mere
assertionCircular reasoningAd hominemRed herringPseudo-questionsFalse causeSweeping
generalizationsSlippery slopeEquivocation or changing meaningsPlease submit your
assignment. The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates is known for a technique called
the Socratic Method, in which the teacher leads the student through a process of
questioning to come to a logically valid conclusion.Born in 469 B.C., Socrates is considered
one of the founding fathers of Western philosophy, even though he left no writings behind
and very little is known about him. Everything that is known of his teachings is found in the
works of his students, like Plato. Much of Plato’s writings are dialogues between Socrates
and his students.Using the Socratic method, answer the following questions:Part 1What do
you think of Socrates’ conclusion that no person knowingly does evil, and therefore, all evil
is ignorance?Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you disagree, state why.Part 2If people
accepted that all evil is ignorance, what implications would that have on the justice
system?How would prison sentencing or the death penalty be affected?Discuss with 2 or
more classmates their opinions and whether or not you agree or disagree with their
statements.Week 3 Philosophy DB response to classmates:Michael
Williams According to the Socratic Method, when it comes to defining and redefining
key terms a human are often unclear about the definitions of their own words. I agree with
the Socratic Method. Why? It is true, through a human mind at the time during the event
taking place that he or she does not realize in their state of mind of what they was during at
that time, but when are back into reality, they realize what they have done, and then they
try to hide it by denying covering up the fact of the situation. ( Soccio, D.J.
1995).
Ignorance is an abnormal behavior activity in the human brain and if
all people was accepted this type of behavior then there is no need for a justice system,
police, lawyers, and judges who all serve and protect the innocent and there will be more
crime in our systems. Therefore, there will be more killings, robberies, and rapes going on
during these current event taking place in our society. Furthermore there will be no more
prison or death penalty in our system and this will affect our society because of this.
Although, I disagree with the death penalty because of our amendments right and also so
does not bring back the victim by taking another life, but this still affect society because the
good will be afraid of the bad. Soccio, D.J. (1995). Archetypes of Wisdom, Belmont, CA:
WadsworthJacqueline Stephens Part 1:Through the dialog in the M.U.S.E. Socratic
Method, I agree with the conclusion Meno and Socrates had: No one desires evil (Soccis, D.J.,
1995). In regards to the question if I agree that no person knowingly does evil and that evil

4. is ignorant, I disagree. Although some people may not be able to comprehend the impact or
reality of the acts they are committing, most people can. Those people are able to
comprehend what evil act they are committing, that it is wrong, and is not an act of
ignorance. I believe that a majority of people can choose to do evil or do good. An example
would be in the school setting. I work as a Para Educator in the Special Needs room for 7th
and 8th graders. We have a wide variety of children in this room, ranging from mental
illness to behavioral problems to just low scoring. The children with mental illness often do
not understand that when they are doing something wrong, being physical or verbally
bullying someone, that it is wrong. Many times they realize after the incident that what
happened was indeed wrong. Then there are children who act out because they want
to. They know that it will not get them anywhere, but they do it anyway. There are always
options in life, it is up to the individual to make the better choice.Part 2:If people accepted
that evil is ignorant, then there really would be no need for a Justice System because all
crime would be justified by ignorance, and what kind of punishment can you enforce on a
person who does not know any better? How fair is that to the victim and family that the
crime was committed against? And if there was a type of Justice System, would they
prosecute all criminals the same? How could they decide who was more or less ignorant to
give a different sentence? I believe the death penalty laws would be abolished due to the
fact that if all sentencing was the same, judges would not impose the death penalty, making
our prisons even more crowded. One thing I for sure believe is if the Justice System
prosecuted all criminals due to ignorance, more crime would be committed. If a criminal
could say that he or she simply did not know any better, the occurrence of crime would
increase. Reference: Soccio, D. J. (1995). Archetypes of wisdom. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth. Kathryn F Artigue PART 1: No person knowingly does evil, and
therefore, all evil is ignorance.I think that Socrates’ conclusion is valid, but is ultimately
false. This type of argument is setup to automatically make the person stating it right, even
if it has false premesis. Although, I can understand where this conclusion is coming from. In
many cases, a person becomes so angry, or confused in a situation they can temporarily lose
control, or even sanity, but this is not always the case. Overall, I disagree with this
conclusion. I feel that some individuals know exactly what they are doing when they
commit evil. There are some people who feel what they are doing, even though it is evil, is
right. Also, evil sometimes gives individuals happiness. These people may be sick and need
professional help and rehabilition. Regardless,it proves Sulcrates’ conclusion, and I do not
believe it to be true. PART 2 If people believed that all evil is ignorance, the justice system
would change dramatically. Everyone could plead temporary insanity, or go around
sentencing using this conclusion. They could say that they did not know what they were
doing was wrong. Although it may be true for some people, the ones who it is not true for
would not suffer the consequences for what they have done. Lawyers would use this
statement to get their client off the hook. It would be a huge loop hole in the justice system.
Families and victims would not be served justice. Prison sentencing would probably consist
of short sentencing, and be based mainly on misdemeanors. How could a judge prosecute
someone if they were unaware wht they were doing was evil. At the most, they would get a
slp on the wrist with the least amount of sentencing. The death senetence would probably

5. never be used. There would be no way for them to be convicted of a crime if they did not
know what they were doing was evil . References- Solomon/Higgins. (2014). The Big
Questions: A Short Introduction to Philosophy, 9th Edition. Cengage Learning Stern, P.
(2002). The philosophic importance of political life: On the digression in plato’s
theaetetus. The American Political Science Review, 96(2), 275-289. Retrieved
fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/214421417?accountid=144459Week 3 IP (Due
Sunday 5.18.14):In philosophy, a logical error is called a logical fallacy. Thereare many
logical fallacies to watch out for when making or evaluating a philosophical
argument.Demonstrate your understanding of each of the following logical fallacies by using
your own words to provide a definition of the term and an argument of 2– 3 sentences:Mere
assertionCircular reasoningAd hominemRed herringPseudo-questionsFalse causeSweeping
generalizationsSlippery slopeEquivocation or changing meaningsPlease submit your
assignment. Click here to get this paper done by our professional writers at an affordable
price!!