After reading all the key terms in ethics, the one I relate to the most is consequentialism. I like it because it talks about how one’s decision changes based on the situation. What I mean by this is for example, if I see someone almost getting run over by a car, and I jump in to save them, but break one of their ribs in the process, it is for the best as I was able to save a life. Because a life was saved, my actions which bring harm, are acceptable. In this case, I would have made my decision based on what the outcome would be. My actions would be judged by the outcome.
On my opinion logic is a resource that ensures the strength of our arguments. Thus, if we start from a series of statements that we consider true, through the rules of logic we can infer valid conclusions.And reason aims to form judgments about matters that matter to us. For this, in addition to the logic, we need our wishes to indicate our interest and apply some criteria to select among these wishes those that we consider valid. This implies making decisions about the values to which we adhere and taking stock when they are in conflict.
In part 5 sarcrates claimed that since virtue cannot be taught instead of knowledges ,it will make more sense in terms of ture opinion.
And if not by knowledge, it must have been by right opinion. This is the means which statesmen employ for their direction of states. Like poets or fortune-tellers, they utter many a true thing when inspired, but they have no knowledge of anything they say.
I somehow don’t agree with him, if u have a true opinion to something then it must be right or correct which is the basic defination of knowledge, and for poet they must write a poem with their own thought and knowledges,and their own thought is based on common sense which is knowledge.
In the third part of this script, we see Meno and Socrates return to the topic of whether virtue can be taught or not, as well as talking about if virtue is good or evil. They encounter a question that stumps Meno as well as me.
“So since it is not by nature that the good become good, is it by education?” (p.32)
This question interests me as it opens up a large question not for me, but for everyone.
Is goodness and kindness a virtue within a person from birth, or does it need to be taught? The same applies with evil. Is one evil by nature? Or does there need to be some external force influencing one to become evil?
Part 3 and 4: In part 3 the main question is: can virtue be taught?
Meno and Socrates argue about this and if it can be taught who can teach it. Socrates states that virtue is some kind of knowledge, he said that virtue is not from birth, it is from learning. In part 4 Socrates explains to Meno talking with another boy called Anytus, that virtue indeed cannot be taught.
Part 2: Meno asks socrates how can a man know that they don’t know something, Socrates answers that someone cannot inquire something only if the person knows he doesn’t know it, that way the person knows what to inquire, socrates says that learning is recollecting and remembering, Socrates with that idea calls a boy who is ignorant in geometry to solve a geometry problem.
Socrates helps the boy to solve the problem by only giving hints not answers, that way he can understand better and not forget it.
Part 1: The conversation starts as Meno ask Socrates what virtue is, Meno is a student of Socrates, he asks if virtue can be taught, they start to expand the conversation as Socrates says that he does not know what virtue is, they get to the topic of why people are evil, they get to a conclusion where people are evil because they are not happy with the authority or their law or government.
Socrates states that virtue is different for every living form and I don’t think it changes depending on your living form, I think is the same for all of us, it is to show a high moral.
In part 3, sacrates and meno was trying to get back to their main purpose argument which is inquiry the nature of virtue.And sacrates has pointing out that virtue can be harm to the people in some case.
Now tell me; such of these as you think are not knowledge, but different from knowledge—do they not sometimes harm us, and sometimes profit us? For example, courage, if it iscourage apart from prudence, and only a sort of boldness: when a man is bold without sense, he is harmed; but when he has sense at the same time, he is profited, is he not?
I do agree sacrates ideas that good thing could be harm in some particular cases,he also gave a example in order to demonstrate the harm of courage in different circumstances,when having courge without prudence it became reckless and could be harmed.so when inquiry the nature of virture,we have to considered the two side of the things,nothing is absolutely good when it’s out of the range.
In part 2 Socrates was trying to convince Meno that people gain knowledge by “recollecting” instead of “study”,so he proved his idea on a illiterate boy by asking him series of questions,and he considered that his question did benefit the small boy.
And we have certainly given him some assistance, it would seem, towards finding out the truth of the matter: for now he will push on in the search gladly, as lacking knowledge;whereas then he would have been only too ready to suppose he was right in saying,before any number of people any number of times, that the double space must have a line of double the length for its side.
I strongly support Socrates ideas, that rather than tell him the answer directly Socrates demonstrate a very good way to gained knowledge which, is asking him question and let him searched the answer by himself.This helped to form a good habit of thinking, and in the future when other people are struggling with the questions that they haven’t learned before, he will be able to tell the answer through his thinking.
I seem to be in a most lucky way, Meno; for in seeking one virtue I have discovered a
whole swarm of virtues there in your keeping. Now, Meno, to follow this figure of a swarm,
suppose I should ask you what is the real nature of the bee, and you replied that there are
many different kinds of bees, and I rejoined: Do you say it is by being bees that they are of
many and various kinds and differ from each other, or does their difference lie not in that,
but in something else—for example, in their beauty or size or some other quality
from this paragraph, I felt that Socrates was just try to tease meno. Socrates asked Meno what is the virtue at first, so Meno gave him some example of the virtue in order to let him understand the norm of the virtue,but he kept asking Meno the real nature of the virtue which is pointless,and I think that giving example were the best way to define the things itself.
furthermore he didn’t answer Meno’s question instead he asked another question which made him more confusing, so I don’t agree with socrates’s idea.
In the first part of Plato’s ‘Meno’, Meno was asking his friend Socrates about what is virtue. But all the answers that Meno gave to Socrates are what is part of virtue instead of what is virtue, even after Socrates begged him and gave him a example of what is figure.
And here you are, Meno, making fun of me?
How so, Socrates?
Because after my begging you not to break up virtue into small change, and giving you a pattern on which you should answer, you have ignored all this, and now tell me that virtue is the ability to procure good things with justice; and this, you tell me, is a part of virtue?
Then it follows from your own admission that doing whatever one does with a part of virtue is itself virtue; for you say that justice is a part of virtue, and so is each of such qualities. You ask the meaning of my remark. It is that after my requesting you to speak of virtue as a whole, you say not a word as to what it is in itself, but tell me that every action is virtue provided that it is done with a part of virtue; as though you had told me what virtue is in the whole, and I must understand it forthwith—when you are really splitting it up into fragments! I think therefore that you must face the same question all over again, my dear Meno—What is virtue?—if we are to be told that every action accompanied by a part of virtue is virtue; for that is the meaning of the statement that every action accompanied by justice is virtue. Or do you not agree that you have to meet the same question afresh? Do you suppose that anyone can know a part of virtue when he does not know virtue itself?
From this part of the story, the most important thing that i learned is when someone is asking you about something, especially when they begged you and gave you an example about the proper answer, answer him properly. And for me, virtue is behavior or attitudes that show high moral standards.
After skimming through the posts and comment that have appeared so far, all I can say is . . .
In response to another post on the IBO’s forum for TOK teachers, Greta Timmers, a former colleague of mine who teaches in The Netherlands, had this response, which may help students understand what is being asked for:
Criterion D asks “how the question could be approached from different perspectives and how their implications should be considered in related areas” (paraphrased).That sounds to me like urging the students to consider what they also do for the essay: “Does the student show an awareness of his or her own perspective as a knower in relation to other perspectives, such as those that may arise, for example, from academic and philosophical traditions, culture or position in society (gender, age, and so on)?”
The second part of the criterion I interpret as: If you conclude [something] for X, does this also have implications for Y and Z?
Possible example: if a presenter holds that life is sacred, [and that] medical ethics should [therefore] not allow euthanasia and abortion, [does this mean] also that political ethics should not allow war? Does it also imply (as Peter Singer does, for example) that the presenter has a duty to help starving individuals?
Criterion D assesses the amount of exploration that has been done.