Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Socrates Refutation of Hedonism

Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 9:32:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. Good people are good because of the presence of good things in them (and bad
because of the presence of bad things).
2. In many situations, cowards experience pleasure and pain to the same degree
as brave people.
3. In many situations, fools experience pleasure and pain to the same degree
as intelligent people.
3. So if pleasure = the good, and pain = the bad, then the cowardly and stupid
are as good as the intelligent and brave.
4. That implies that there is no real difference between good and bad people. They
are equally good and bad"which is absurd.

https://docs.google.com...

Anyone care to make a counter argument?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:24:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Cowardice and foolishness are subjective, so it's not really saying anything.

You could use it for any category - ugly people experience pain and pleasure the same as beautiful people...but unless you can show that the distinction matters, it doesn't mean anything.
Burls
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 8:40:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 9:32:23 AM, Objectivity wrote: 4. That implies that there is no real difference between good and bad people. They are equally good and bad"which is absurd. Anyone care to make a counter argument?

Counter argument: "Good" & "Bad" are subjective and not always defined by consensus of opinion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 3:49:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 9:32:23 AM, Objectivity wrote:
1. Good people are good because of the presence of good things in them (and bad
because of the presence of bad things).
2. In many situations, cowards experience pleasure and pain to the same degree
as brave people.
3. In many situations, fools experience pleasure and pain to the same degree
as intelligent people.
3. So if pleasure = the good, and pain = the bad, then the cowardly and stupid
are as good as the intelligent and brave.
4. That implies that there is no real difference between good and bad people. They
are equally good and bad"which is absurd.

https://docs.google.com...

Anyone care to make a counter argument?

It's a nonsensical argument for a few reasons.

1. The fact that pleasure = good and pain = bad doesn't mean that two people who are equally capable of experiencing pleasure and pain are equally "good". Whether someone is "good" or bad" may depend on whether the net pleasure/pain they introduce into the world is positive or negative. Obviously, intelligence and bravery may play into this.

2. Premise 4 begs the question.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 4:14:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 9:32:23 AM, Objectivity wrote:
1. Good people are good because of the presence of good things in them (and bad
because of the presence of bad things).
2. In many situations, cowards experience pleasure and pain to the same degree
as brave people.
3. In many situations, fools experience pleasure and pain to the same degree
as intelligent people.
3. So if pleasure = the good, and pain = the bad, then the cowardly and stupid
are as good as the intelligent and brave.
4. That implies that there is no real difference between good and bad people. They
are equally good and bad"which is absurd.

https://docs.google.com...

Anyone care to make a counter argument?

All people are both good and bad. The individual defines goodness as that which affords him, or her, the greatest benefit.

However, even though the individual may define something as good, society may not. Therefore, goodness defined by the individual is useless to the collective. (For, most people having achieved a greater deal of goodness [or benefit] would define themselves as good.) So, the question of good and bad as concerning the collective is answered in determination of which individuals are most beneficial to society. The individual whose benefit transcends him, or her, in either ideology or practice is seen as good by the collective; however, the individual whose benefit only goes to serve him, or her, is seen as selfish and contradictory. Morality as concerning the individual is subjective; morality as concerning the collective is objective.