The success of every hero movie undoubtedly relies on the effectiveness of the villain. The character that has corrupt motives and performs malicious actions consistently throughout the entire plot of the film – the Joker. This prevalent character, the Joker, reveals an objection to the Socratic view on virtue. In Plato’s Laches, two fathers seek advice from Laches, Nicias, and Socrates on how to raise honorable men. Socrates confirms an honorable man does not result from teaching “fighting-in-armour” but rather teaching virtue. The Joker objection reveals that the Socratic definition of virtue needs to be slightly altered in order to hold up against this imperative character in film. The three men attempt to tackle their question by defining
…show more content…
The first is knowledge of good and evil. The second knowledge is perceiving the value of good and evil. One must know the significance of the past, present, and future good and evil. For instance, a doctor might have a cure for a runner with manageable diabetes. The treatment would cure the diabetes, but would involve amputating one of the runners’ legs. While the runner would no longer have diabetes, he also wouldn’t be able to run. Therefore, the doctor must understand the varying values of what is good and evil. The doctor should evaluate which outcome leads to a greater gain so he can make a virtuous decision for the runner. In most instances, while the runner may be cured of diabetes, the treatment fails to outweigh the joy provided by the leg. Therefore, if virtue does not include grasping the values of varying outcomes than amputating the runners leg holds as a virtuous decision by the doctor, which we have proven to not be a very virtuous decision. Obtaining the knowledge and the value of what is good and evil allows one to grasp …show more content…
While one would hope this is the case, according to Glaucon in Plato’s Republic, “self-interest drives a majority of our actions. Humans naturally behave selfishly but are driven by guilt to act justly.” Therefore, concluding the definition of virtue as knowledge of all goods and evils excludes individuals that behave unjustly for their own self-benefit, i.e. the Joker. Holding knowledge of all goods and evils does not directly imply that a parallel exists between knowledge and behavior. Hence, enhancing the definition prevails the Socratic
The first is knowledge of good and evil. The second knowledge is perceiving the value of good and evil. One must know the significance of the past, present, and future good and evil. For instance, a doctor might have a cure for a runner with manageable diabetes. The treatment would cure the diabetes, but would involve amputating one of the runners’ legs. While the runner would no longer have diabetes, he also wouldn’t be able to run. Therefore, the doctor must understand the varying values of what is good and evil. The doctor should evaluate which outcome leads to a greater gain so he can make a virtuous decision for the runner. In most instances, while the runner may be cured of diabetes, the treatment fails to outweigh the joy provided by the leg. Therefore, if virtue does not include grasping the values of varying outcomes than amputating the runners leg holds as a virtuous decision by the doctor, which we have proven to not be a very virtuous decision. Obtaining the knowledge and the value of what is good and evil allows one to grasp …show more content…
While one would hope this is the case, according to Glaucon in Plato’s Republic, “self-interest drives a majority of our actions. Humans naturally behave selfishly but are driven by guilt to act justly.” Therefore, concluding the definition of virtue as knowledge of all goods and evils excludes individuals that behave unjustly for their own self-benefit, i.e. the Joker. Holding knowledge of all goods and evils does not directly imply that a parallel exists between knowledge and behavior. Hence, enhancing the definition prevails the Socratic