In my opinion, there is no universal moral value in the world. People reach universal values because they have the same views and understanding of what is good and what is bad, so that they will have the same values. Judging what is good and what is bad, but not everyone has the same moral values, because this is just the unified thinking of most people, and does not mean that everyone is an idea
I think the “fact” of morality is just an opinion. Everyone agrees that murder is a wrong fact, but this is a matter of looking at things from different angles. No one wants to murder some people for no reason. It is necessary to go back to this extreme behavior only under certain circumstances, so what people think of murder is wrong is just a common thought
in my opinion, i think the Golden rule is the best Ethic. “The Golden Rule of ethics is that you should treat other people as you wish to be treated yourself” i think everyone in this world is equal, we should threat others very equaily. we are all human being, why should we threat others so special. because i am a peaceful man, so i would like to threat all the people in one way.
For me, good things are benefits most of the people and bad things are hurt most of the people. For example, a factory pollutes the environment, It hurt human beings.
in my opinion, i think good is the things that you can get benifits or the thing that can make you feel satisfied in your life. And the bad things is that the things will make you lose some valuable thing from yourself. The example of the good things is that i am 18 years old, so that i can do a lots of things that i can’t do in the past like driving or something else. And the bad things is my grandmother passed away recently, that makes me felt sad and i lost my grandmother forever. So the conclusion of the bad thing and good thing is that good things can let you gain benifit and the bad thing can let you lose someting.
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
—Steven Wright, stand-up comedian
After we have read and understood so many lectures, we have learned a lot of principles and logic. These logics have gradually become part of our lives. Everyone has their own different views on different things, so their understanding of things has different logics. Under different logics, different conclusions can be drawn. For example, inductive paradox, wrong analogy, hasty generalization, will It is because of the conclusions that some different logics have come to, and these conclusions are obviously not to be taken as the opinion of all. In class, Mr.Macknight gave an example. He saw a large group of Chinese people wearing glasses. He summed up the rumors that all Chinese wear glasses, which is why many people have different things. The understanding, because they have different logic, makes their ideas and reality very different. Therefore, many things are not what some people think, and what the facts are. There is such a passage in a handout. “A change in this paradox is an attraction to rumors. Because the source of rumors is usually unknown, it is impossible to determine whether or not to believe the rumor. Very often it is deliberately spreading false and harmful. Proverbs to discredit opponents. This just proves that they spread rumors everywhere, smearing opponents or other things, and seriously affecting them in the absence of other things.
They found a little boy named anyus to do an interview about mathematics. Under their guidance and correction, the little boy succeeded in making a topic. Then they started a heated discussion based on the little boy’s ideas and understanding.
What is this, Anytus? Of all the people who set up to understand how to do us good, do
you mean to single out these as conveying not merely no benefit, such as the rest can
give, but actually corruption to anyone placed in their hands? And is it for doing this that
they openly claim the payment of fees? For my part I cannot bring myself to believe you;
for I know of one man, Protagoras, who amassed more money by his craft than Pheidias–
so famous for the noble works he produced–or any ten other sculptors. And yet how
surprising that menders of old shoes and furbishers of clothes should not be able to go
undetected thirty days if they should return the clothes or shoes in worse condition than
they received them, and that such doings on their part would quickly starve them to death,
while for more than forty years all Greece failed to notice that Protagoras was corrupting
his classes and sending his pupils away in a worse state than when he took charge of
them! For I believe he died about seventy years old, forty of which he spent in the practice
of his art; and he retains undiminished to this day the high reputation he has enjoyed all
that time–and not only Protagoras, but a multitude of others too: some who lived before
him, and others still living. Now are we to take it, according to you, that they wittingly
deceived and corrupted the youth, or that they were themselves unconscious of it? Are we
to conclude those who are frequently termed the wisest of mankind to have been so
demented as that?
Demented! Not they, Socrates: far rather the young men who pay them money, and still
more the relations who let the young men have their way; and most of all the cities that
allow them to enter, and do not expel them, whether such attempt be made by stranger or
Tell me, Anytus, has any of the sophists wronged you? What makes you so hard on them?
No, heaven knows I have never in my life had dealings with any of them, nor would I let
any of my people have to do with them either.
in this part they finish their discussion about the viture and the knowledge vs belif
Well, if neither the sophists nor the men who are themselves good and honorable are
teachers of the subject, clearly no others can be?
And if there are no teachers, there can be no disciples either?
I think that statement is true.
And we have admitted that a thing of which there are neither teachers nor disciples cannot
So nowhere are any teachers of virtue to be found?
That is so
Their discussion still has no fixed answer, just make a decision in the proper sense.
The part that made me think the most about parts 3 and 4 of Plato’s Meno was when they discussed whether men can be good by nature or if they are taught to be good. I really paid attention to this part because I had to think about what I thought was good and what was not.
Then may we assert this as a universal rule, that in man all other things depend upon the
soul, while the things of the soul herself depend upon wisdom, if they are to be good; and
so by this account the profitable will be wisdom, and virtue, we say, is profitable? (32)
This is the quote that made me think a lot about whether we are born good or taught to be good. It also made me think a lot about whether if we have virtue, we can use it to our advantage by getting a good job. It could also help us make better life decisions in the future.
in part two ,they have a very deep disscusion about the vritue again and Scorate give Meno some example and told him the real reason why people did the evil things to their society. Scorate also told him what is virtue and what is quality. they also talked about the shape and the colour in part two
So all mankind are good in the same way; for they become good when they acquire the
So it seems.
And I presume, if they had not the same virtue, they would not be good in the same way.
Seeing then that it is the same virtue in all cases, try and tell me, if you can recollect, what
Gorgias—and you in agreement with him—say it is.
Simply that it is the power of governing mankind—if you want some single description to
cover all cases.
in this part, they have the same idea of the initial virtue of all the people, people have the same quality but they have different virtue, so they will treat others in different way。They just look very ordinary on the surface, but they think completely differently from what they want to do. This is why they have the same quality but different virtues. Virtue is based on people taking the initiative. Made out, and quality can only be born by nature
My understanding of part one of Plato’s Meno is the focus on virtue. Meno asks Socrates whether virtue can be taught and acquired through practice. At the beginning of the script, Meno is confident that he knows what virtue is and that virtue will change, depending on whether the person is a man or a woman, their class, or role in society, and their age.
Why, there is no difficulty, Socrates, in telling. First of all, if you take the virtue of a man, it is easily stated that a man’s virtue is this—that he be competent to manage the affairs of his city, and to manage them so as to benefit his friends and harm his enemies, and to take care to avoid suffering harm himself. Or take a woman’s virtue: there is no difficulty in describing it as the duty of ordering the house well, looking after the property indoors, and obeying her husband. And the child has another virtue—one for the female, and one for the male; and there is another for elderly men—one, if you like, for freemen, and yet another for slaves. And there are very many other virtues besides, so that one cannot be at a loss to explain what virtue is; for it is according to each activity and age that every one of us, in whatever we do, has his virtue; and the same, I take it, Socrates, will hold also of vice. (p. 2).
This excerpt from the script shows me that Meno is very confident in his understanding and comprehension of virtue. As I read this, it confused me a bit. I think Socrates will continue to explain to Meno what virtue is, in a way to help him and myself to understand the idea better. Something else that Socrates did which I thought was very smart was that Socrates would not tell the answer to Meno in a straightforward way, but instead he would ask him a question in order to make Meno actually think instead of just being told the answer. By doing this, Meno has to look at all the different views and perspectives of the idea to help him solve the problem, instead of just his own.
In the first part of “Meno”. Meno asked a question about “is virtue acquired by learning or practice or it just comes naturally” to Socrates, but Socrates proclaimed that he doesn’t know about that because he doesn’t know what is a virtue and he believed that he never know a person understand about virtue and give a question about what is virtue to Meno in response.
In the next, they had a lot of conversation about the definition of virtue.
By the way, I found it is very interesting by reading through the script because it makes me think a lot, although it is very hard for me to understand the language and makes me confuse a lot of times.
In page 5 and 6, this section makes me confuse
And no wonder; but I will make an effort, so far as I can, to help us onward. Youunderstand, of course, that this principle of mine applies to everything: if someone askedyou the question I put to you just now: What is figure, Meno? and you replied: Roundness;and then he said, as I did: Is roundness figure or a figure? I suppose you would answer: A
And for this reason—that there are other figures as well?
And if he went on to ask you of what sort they were, you would tell him?
And if he asked likewise what color is, and on your answering “white” your questioner then
rejoined: Is “white” color or a color? your reply would be: A color; because there are other
And if he bade you mention other colors, you would tell him of others that are colors just as
much as white?
Now suppose that, like me, he pursued the argument and said: We are always arriving at a
variety of things, but let me have no more of that: since you call these many things by one
single name, and say they are figures, every one of them, even when they are opposed to
one another, tell me what is that which comprises round and straight alike, and which you
call figure—including straight equally with round under that term. For that is your
statement, is it not?
The main theme of part one is about virtue, Meno and Socrates were have a discussion about how the people express virtue at that time and the difference of people or object have different appearance but have the same quality or same appearance but different quality.Sometimes the conversation between the two of them is really difficult to understand, but they have more meanings that they say, you can understand a little.
But yet, son of Alexidemus, I am inclined to think the other was the better of the two; and I
believe you also would prefer it, if you were not compelled, as you were saying yesterday,
to go away before the mysteries, and could stay awhile and be initiated.
But I should stay, Socrates, if you would give me many such answers.
Well then, I will spare no endeavor, both for your sake and for my own, to continue in that
style; but I fear I may not succeed in keeping for long on that level. But come now, you in
your turn must try and fulfil your promise by telling me what virtue is in a general way; and
you must stop producing a plural from the singular, as the wags say whenever one breaks
something, but leave virtue whole and sound, and tell me what it is. The pattern you have
now got from me.
Well, in my view, Socrates, virtue is, in the poet’s words, “to rejoice in things honorable and
be able for them”5 ; and that, I say, is virtue–to desire what is honorable and be able to
Do you say that he who desires the honorable is desirous of the good?
Implying that there are some who desire the evil, and others the good? Do not all men, in
your opinion, my dear sir, desire the good?
I think not.
There are some who desire the evil?
Thinking the evil to be good, do you mean, or actually recognizing it to be evil, and
desiring it nevertheless?
Plato’s ‘Meno’, tr. W.R.M. Lamb • Page 10 of 46
Both, I believe.
Do you really believe, Meno, that a man knows the evil to be evil, and still desires it?
What do you mean by “desires”? Desires the possession of it?
Yes; what else could it be?
And does he think the evil benefits him who gets it, or does he know that it harms him who
There are some who think the evil is a benefit, and others who know that it does harm.
And, in your opinion, do those who think the evil a benefit know that it is evil?
I do not think that at all.
Obviously those who are ignorant of the evil do not desire it, but only what they supposed
to be good, though it is really evil; so that those who are ignorant of it and think it good are
really desiring the good. Is not that so?
It would seem to be so in their case.
Well now, I presume those who, as you say, desire the evil, and consider that the evil
harms him who gets it, know that they will be harmed by it?
They needs must.
There are also some thing that stand from virtue,like desire of devil , everyone know desire but they just have different opinion on the desire of devil, so they will do the thing differently. someone may do something good to protect the society, and others may do something that only benefit to themselves without care others feelings.Virtue is different in the eyes of all people, they will make different things according to their understanding of virtue, and thus get different results. I think I already know the general meaning of this conversation. I have not considered the further aspects.I think I should read it a few more times so that I can have a deep understanding of this dialogue so that I will not be confused when I read it.All in all, the first part of the dialogue is mainly a dialogue about virtues derived from other conduct.