Through the ages philosophers have considered how basic human motivations affect their willingness to put new elements of thought into action in their lives. Socrates/Plato promoted the idea that people were naturally inquisitive and sought knowledge of the world around them in order to pursue a life that was in harmony with it. Socrates' dialectic process was aimed at getting at these ultimate truths so that the people he talked with could come up with these truths and live by them.
Aristotle was more skeptical. He believed that man's nature was too self-centered, and that some degree of reward was needed to motivate a person to "do the right thing". Maybe this motivation would be pleasure in some way, or the avoidance of pain or displeasure, or even just a nice thought, but being motivated by some other altruistic goal was not a part of the human psyche.
Which is right? I asked Bard...
<Des> Socrates believed that people were inherently good and only lacked the knowledge as to the right thing to do. Aristotle believed people would do whatever they felt was in their best interest, and were not intrinsically good or bad. Which view is correct?
<Bard> This is a complex question that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. There is no easy answer, and both Socrates and Aristotle had valid points.
Socrates believed that people were inherently good and only lacked the knowledge as to the right thing to do. He argued that if people were given the opportunity to learn about what is good and right, they would naturally choose to do good. This is because, according to Socrates, people have a natural desire for good and happiness.
Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that people would do whatever they felt was in their best interest, and were not intrinsically good or bad. He argued that people are motivated by a variety of factors, including their desires, their emotions, and their beliefs. These factors can sometimes lead people to do things that are not in their best interest, or that are harmful to others.
Socrates' view is more optimistic, while Aristotle's view is more realistic. It is likely that both views are correct to some extent. People are capable of great good, but they are also capable of great evil. The key is to help people develop the knowledge and the skills they need to make good choices.
Here are some of the arguments for and against each view:
Arguments for Socrates' view:
- People have a natural desire for good and happiness.
- People can be taught to distinguish between good and evil.
- People can be motivated to do good by appealing to their sense of duty or their desire for praise.
Arguments against Socrates' view:
- People are not always rational beings. They are often driven by their emotions, their desires, and their prejudices.
- Even if people know what is right, they may not always choose to do it. They may be tempted by rewards or they may be afraid of punishment.
- People can be corrupted by bad influences. They can be taught to believe that evil is good and good is evil.
Arguments for Aristotle's view:
- People are motivated by a variety of factors, including their desires, their emotions, and their beliefs.
- These factors can sometimes lead people to do things that are not in their best interest, or that are harmful to others.
- It is important to understand these factors in order to help people make good choices.
Arguments against Aristotle's view:
- Aristotle's view can be pessimistic. It suggests that people are not capable of great good.
- Aristotle's view can be deterministic. It suggests that people are not free to choose their own actions.
Ultimately, the question of whether people are inherently good or bad is a matter of personal opinion. There is no scientific evidence to support either view.