KNOWLEDGE IS VIRTUE

Mikhail and Dave are walking on a football field. They have just finished football practice.
Dave asks: Mikhail, the other day I was standing near the entrance of the train and the guy behind me and to get down. Apparently he had some difficulty getting down as It seemed I obstructed him. He called me immoral. I think his argument was that I did not have to get down yet was standing at the entrance when others who had to get down could stand there. But why did he call me immoral? I did not choose to obstruct him.

Dave stands up and says:

Man is essentially without morals. By his nature, he has no knowledge of what morals are and so has none-> w/o morals, an amoral state. But he cannot ‘choose’ to be without morals for it means his choosing is based on some alternative that he refused to choose i.e. morals. The Choice to be ‘without morals’ instead of morals, is immoral. The principle difference then between ‘without morals’ and immoral is knowledge. Thus Man often acts in ignorance of Morals. Once he has chosen, he ceases to be in that ignorance. He ceases to be in a ‘without moral’ i.e. amoral state.

Now a common objection is that even when he is amoral (without morals and not immoral), he is not making any effort to be moral and so he is making a continuous implicit choice to be amoral and is averting from choosing morals. Thus in making a continuous implicit choice (everyday) to be without morals, he is being immoral. This objection may sound true but it is not. It contradicts the definition of ignorance.

If he is not making an effort to be moral, he may choose not to. In this case, how did he choose? There has to be some knowledge to choose from. Thus he has knowledge that he can be moral and still chooses not to, which makes him immoral. But there can be no ‘continuous implicit choice’ because this choice (implicit or not) means he has knowledge of morals and is still staying amoral which falls under immorality. So if he stays amoral doesn’t necessarily mean he is making a ‘continuous implicit choice’. The fact that is he amoral means that he is ignorant (ignorance of morals). There is no choice when there is no knowledge (no knowledge is defined as ignorance). Man can be ignorant that a choice can be made to be moral. As soon as one has knowledge, a choice is made, whether he makes it implicitly in his conscience or speaks it out aloud to himself in the mirror in whichever’s favor, knowledge allows you to make a choice between morality and staying amoral, that is, immorality. Ignorance of morals means lack of knowledge of morals.

That is why Socrates said, Knowledge is Virtue. Socrates claimed, we do not become virtuous (morally upright) by our will or strength or courage. We become moral by knowledge alone (which then needs will and courage). Only when we have knowledge can we know to what end we should will, with what amount of courage and the strength to apply. Without knowledge, how can we ascertain, whether our strong will power is being directed towards good or Evil (Hitler had a strong will), whether our courage is helping defend the right cause or just courage to fight like hooligans. If we wish to be moral, then try to have knowledge. Socrates said, Know! (And the greatest personality development course you can ever undergo on your own) and ‘KNOW THYSELF’. KNOWLEDGE IS VIRTUE!