According to the Oxford dictionary harm is defined as “Physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted”. Based on this definition the general understanding of harm in modern day society is to intentionally, and physically hurt someone. Therefore, when a police officer is shot in the line of duty – paralyzing him – is an example of harm in terms of the modern definition.
However, this is the exact fact that Socrates definition contradicts. The text mentions the classical Greek definition; “making worse” means worse in respect to the appropriate virtue. The definition of virtue is then appropriated by using the example, it is not harming a horse if you harm them in terms of virtue that a dog possesses. It is only harmful if the horse is worsened in respect to the virtue of a horse. This means that Socrates did not believe harm to be an external factor, nor did he think it was an act of physical injury. We can understand this when the text talks about cutting off a carpenter’s hand, he is no longer able to be a carpenter however he is not harmed in terms of human virtue as being a carpenter is not all that man can do. Instead – in Socrates’ definition – harming someone’s body does not make them a bad person, yet assuming it is possible, making that person unjust is harmful. Real harm, in Socratic terms, is harder to recover from. The same carpenter whose hand …show more content…
However, there is no evidence to prove this to be true, we cannot assume that justice truly is human virtue just because Polemarchus said it was. So if hypothetically state that Socrates has proven that justice is an essential good in the soul – which he will later on in the republic – then it can be applied to the earlier theory of harming human beings to make them ‘worse’ in terms of virtue that a human possesses. Making a genuine act of harm one that makes another human being
However, this is the exact fact that Socrates definition contradicts. The text mentions the classical Greek definition; “making worse” means worse in respect to the appropriate virtue. The definition of virtue is then appropriated by using the example, it is not harming a horse if you harm them in terms of virtue that a dog possesses. It is only harmful if the horse is worsened in respect to the virtue of a horse. This means that Socrates did not believe harm to be an external factor, nor did he think it was an act of physical injury. We can understand this when the text talks about cutting off a carpenter’s hand, he is no longer able to be a carpenter however he is not harmed in terms of human virtue as being a carpenter is not all that man can do. Instead – in Socrates’ definition – harming someone’s body does not make them a bad person, yet assuming it is possible, making that person unjust is harmful. Real harm, in Socratic terms, is harder to recover from. The same carpenter whose hand …show more content…
However, there is no evidence to prove this to be true, we cannot assume that justice truly is human virtue just because Polemarchus said it was. So if hypothetically state that Socrates has proven that justice is an essential good in the soul – which he will later on in the republic – then it can be applied to the earlier theory of harming human beings to make them ‘worse’ in terms of virtue that a human possesses. Making a genuine act of harm one that makes another human being