Socrates Human Nature Analysis

Concerning Human Nature and Morality Socrates’ second Socratic paradox states that no man would willingly do harm if he knew what was good for himself. This is a paradox by every definition. By observing the very world we live in we can see how Socrates’ second paradox tends to contradict itself. Socrates’ claims do not seem to factor the problem of evil or human nature in totality. Humans, by nature, are not all bad, However we struggle with moral problem that can shed light on our faults. In Socrates’ statement the cornerstone is that no man knowingly or willingly does harm. Therefore, anyone who commits a crime or does disservice to his fellow man is ignorant of the fact that he is indeed doing harm. However, this is often not the case. …show more content…
The very way that the brain interprets and deals with information is different from person to person. Even on a chemical level, we are all entirely different. So to use a claim that is so general as to say that no man knowingly or willing does harm is a generalized statement. If socrates’ claims are true then why are we not living in a perfectly utopia world void of war, hunger, and suffering? We live in a world where not everyone does what is in their best interest. We make mistakes time and time again. However, this is what makes us human. The very fact that we make mistakes and can learn from them is what makes us so great. Will live, as humans, with something called the “human condition.” We are beings that are capable of doing such good but as a juxtaposition, capable of doing terrible, unspeakable acts. We tend to try to ignore the evil in the world as much as possible. We don't like to see hurt and evil in our world, it tends to be cornered off in some dark shut off part of our mind. This paradox seems to not correspond well with the human condition. We want to believe that everyone will do right and no one will willingly do harm, however human beings are cable of unimaginable light but also unspeakable