It is certain that over the years of study and academics , there has been a great debate on the true definition of the discipline Philosophy.

For the purpose of this post I am going to go with a more particular view of the discipline Philosophy and say that it is TAKING A LONG RANGE DETACHED VIEW OF IMMEDIATE PROBLEMS.

INTRODUCTION

Whether we like it or not, at certain points in our life if not all, w philosophize and more often than not we don't really notice.

A man who is hungry; having the opportunity to steal but he is torn between two realities: his moral standard and his survival if he takes a long and objective view of his situation and arrives at a conclusion, he then has made a attempt at philosophizing.

There are some problems that philosophy over the centuries have been trying to solve or have argued about and I for one would say the toughest has been the existence of God and ethics. This post will concentrate on the latter.

ETHICS

Ethics is a code or set of principle by which men live by. Ethics more often than not is subjective. Thus the philosophical term : ethical subjectivism ( believing that what ever one feels is right is the right thing).
It requires a level of knowledge to philosophize and not every man possesses this kind of knowledge. The ordinary man in trying to resolve the ethical problem just focuses on the particular problem and circumstances surrounding it. The philosopher on the other hand takes a generalized approach . He does not just seek the solution for the man he seeks the solution that answers the question:

WHAT IS THE GOOD LIFE FOR ALL MEN?

However there have been many debates on what right is. Ethics borders on two major concepts:

1. HOW OUGHT MEN TO LIVE ?
2. WHAT MAKES UP THE GOOD LIFE FOR MAN?

Hedonism argues that the good life is ultimately one of pleasure but after careful scrutinizing we now understand and have seen that there are bad pleasures and this means that it would be illogical to say that the "good life" is one of pleasure.

There has been several theories and one of the is the one proposed by a great philosopher PLATO.

"If we KNOW what the good life is, then we must try by all means to achieve it."

"Evil is due to lack of knowledge"

These opening statements are the basis on which Plato formed his arguments. According to him, men will only do evil or act immorally if he does not know what the good life is. And for him man's major task is to discover what "the good" is.

He provided a solution as to how men should discover the good is to acquire a certain kind of knowledge. He maintained in his program that men should be trained in

Virtuous habits
Mental powers

There are men who lack the intellectual capacity to acquire knowledge but If they should imitate and follow men who know extensively what the good life is, then they too can lead the good life even if they lack the understanding of what it is they do. It should be noted that Plato's arguments were not that the good life was a life of knowledge but the "knowledge of what is good* is the good life. If you know what I good and try to achieve it then you would not do evil or act immorally.

PLATO AND ABSOLUTISM

Many philosophers were of the opinion that Plato's theory was absolute. This was due to the fact that Plato insisted that there is only one good life., the life of the knowledge of good.

Goodness was not subjective it's absolutely objective nature. It is not a function of inclinations, desires or opinions rather it was a truth that was absolute and exists whether or not we know it. He likened goodness to mathematical truth.

• 1 + 1 = 2; is a universal truth and to the 9month old baby who doesn't know this; the kindergarten kid who is learning about it; high school students; undergraduates and even esteemed scholar cannot dispute this indubitable truth even if they want to.

This was what Plato argued. Neo-Platonism was the closest Greek philosophy came to becoming a religion but theory was flawed and frowned upon because it placed divinity under the standard of goodness. Plato was of the opinion that "God is good if and only if he acts in accordance with the standards of goodness"
The story of the Amalekites in the Bible is a clear example of what Plato would hold against God with his absolutism.

• Exodus: 20. 13: Thou shalt not kill.

This was the command that was given to the children of Israel not too long after they exited from the land of Egypt.

• 1 Samuel: 15. 3.
  Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

The same God sent the prophet Samuel to the King Saul to go and smite (KILL) the Amalekites. So it seems like he is contradicting himself and since God has clearly stated that killing was against the law, any act in disobedience will be considered not good and God can be considered to not be good.

This didn't go down well with the Jews then since they considered God as the only good. (Discussion for another day)

PLATO'S CRITICISM
The greatest criticism of his theory was the fact of knowledge of good does not prevent the man from treading the path of evil.

A pastor embezzling funds of the church would be a funny but real life example to give . He is a pastor ; a a servant of God and so he must understand the commandment : "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL" but his greed gets the better of him. He knows the truth he just chooses to ignore it

But Plato's argument was of a more subtle nature. He simply wanted to provide a general solution to problems arising from our daily lives. As a soldier and Christian one would be torn between killing to defend our nation and upholding the law of thou shalt not kill. Plato posited that if the soldier had more information as to how to act he would know exactly what to do in such dilemmas. Plato's point was that every moral difficulties would be solvable if further knowledge is acquired.
Critics of Plato still maintained that Plato took ethics to be a scientific or mathematical concept and that was an error in judgement for him. further knowledge about a situation does not solve the problem.

Take the Japan bombing for instance. Dropping the bomb on Japan in the world war brought it to an abrupt end (which was good) but the radiation levels there even till date is hazardous to all life form (very bad). The duration of war was shortened but the adverse effects of the bombing still lingers. What if someone had KNOWN of the effects would he still have dropped the bomb? And if he didn't drop the bomb would the war have ended? This is a perplexing situation and Plato's approach would have been inappropriate to solve this conundrum.

Dropping the bomb will end the war but kill thousands make Nagasaki inhabitable for decades to come; not dropping the bomb may not have ended the war and maybe millions would have lost their lives in the unending war

but how could anyone have known the extent

of the outcome?

Another problem his theory had was inference drawn from the statement that not everyone has the ability to lead the good life but only a few intellectually capable men could.

Plato clearly stirred alot of waters by his theories and without doubts had oppositions one of which was his student: Aristotle (which would be discussed in my next post on episodes of ethics)

We all know that the knowledge of good does not prevent us from opting for evil deeds, so my question to us is:

IS KNOWLEDGE THE ONLY NECESSITY FOR A GOOD LIFE?

Thank you for reading.