On September eleventh this year an attack of amass proportions was carried out on the United States. In the aftermath, the greatest search for criminals ever conducted in America continues to this day. Many people are now speculating the reasoning behind these felons, and one should ask, "Do the culprits who committed these heinous crimes and died feel more miserable than those who the crimes were acted upon?" Socrates, one of the greatest minds in ancient Greek philosophy, asked this very same question. In a conversation with Polus in Plato's Gorgias he outlines in full his argument that attempts to show that it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong. In outlining the specific steps throughout this argument I will show that it is a sound one.
To assess the argument between himself and Polus, Socrates begins the conversation that is located in Gorgias from pages 468-e to 479-e by asking Polus if tyrannical rule is in fact good by definition. In finding that the two agree on only one point contained within this question, the fact that acting as one sees fit coincides with acting beneficially, which is good, Socrates then poses the question of whether someone can be happy while being unjust. Throughout this discussion Polus refutes Socrates in such a way that it seems Polus is leaning towards the winning side. Polus" statement, "Even a child could refute you and show that what you are saying isn't true," gives the first sign of this. (470-c) Socrates then continues to uphold his argument by saying specifically what he sees as Polus" belief and tells him it is impossible for someone who is in great power and who commits unjust acts to be happy. .
The next level of the argument leads to a discussion of Socrates" belief that one who acts unjustly and is punished is less miserable than one who is unjust and unpunished, while Polus says the opposite. Socrates uses his argument that what is true can never be refuted to attempt to keep a solid argument.