Do you mean 'knowing it (really) is bad' or 'knowing almost everyone else thinks it is bad'?

Experience, the little I have, has shown me that in our present circumstances there are things like power and wealth which are considered, by some, to be more important than good, whatever ''good'' means.

Another thing I want to say is that the ''bad'' may be used to achieve an ultimate good. For instance, we may kill a mass shooter to save many lives and we may lie to save a friend.

I think evil is never an end unto itself - in agreement with Socrates - but evil may become the means to achieve certain goals.

Socrates' view that no one intentionally does evil. — Mitchell

I think humans are perfectly capable of intentionally doing evil.

One can always find a way of packaging an evil act as "intending to do good" even though one would be very, very hard pressed to find anyone who would describe it as "good".

Take the mass murderer in Las Vegas: As far as I can tell, the murderer intended to do something evil and was quite successful. Oh yes, I suppose one could come with something like "he was actually trying to discourage people from gambling" so he was actually intending to do good. Bogus. Specious. Bullshit

Some people thought that killing 6 million Jews and starving the Slavs to death was something that was supposed to be good for Germany. So, Hitler & Co. actually intended to good.

Such reasoning is foul.

Experience, the little I have, has shown me that in our present circumstances there are things like power and wealth which are considered, by some, to be more important than good, whatever ''good'' means. — TheMadFool

I think those people might label good as being a form of societal power. In my opinion, our definition of good comes for the sum of society's emotional beliefs about the way we want things to be. We condemn people who use "bad" means in order to protect ourselves from being victim to those behaviors. I don't think it is fair to say that people view power as being more important than good because I view good as being a form of power itself. Its more like people who stray from the convention of morality are less interested in that kind of power and decide morality isn't necessary to get what they want.

The one offered by Plato is that when one does something . evil one mistakenly thinks one is doing something good; we always desire the good. — Mitchell

So based on what I said above, I disagree with this. We don't always desire the good. Good is just a socially defined and accepted way of getting what you desire. From this view, the desire is neutral. The means to satisfying that desire is where things go wrong, or sometimes the satisfaction of that desire altogether is wrong. I'm sure there is some whacko exception to this next statement, but for the most part, people don't rape because they believe it is right, they rape because they want to and they don't care if it is wrong.

Do you think it is possible to actually desire the bad, knowing that it is bad and that nothing good will come of it? — Mitchell

I guess the answer to this question depends on what you mean by good and bad, but I think it can be generally agreed upon that genocide is bad, but for the person/people committing it, it solves all their problems. Even though people view it as being bad, it ends up being good for the perpetrators. Something good comes from it, just not good for everyone.

Well, there are purely conceptual resolutions based on disentangling equivocations about words such as "good" and "evil."

Another consideration is that we are not always presented with a binary choice of good vs. evil. In any morally non-trivial situation we end up doing some sort of moral balancing, choosing the least evil or the good that seemingly outweighs the attendant evil. And different people in different epistemic situations will balance the scales differently, hence one person may judge another person's choice as evil on the balance.

Also, Socrates assumes a perfectly rational agent, but people are not perfectly rational agents. What constitutes intentional action or desirable action is not always clear. Sometimes we do something we seemingly don't want to do, even without being forced. Sometimes we do what we know we ought not to do. I don't think these ambiguities can be satisfyingly fixed with conceptual analysis, because there is no unambiguous fact of the matter, not in such simple terms.

I doubt an trustworthy discussion about this "Paradox" can be had outside of a full study of the Gorgias dialogue as a whole, which concerns rhetoric and the art of convincing.

Plato says two positive things in this dialogue, which is unusual, in that most of his dialogues are aporetic. I think that both of these things have to be taken together, that one entails the other.

1) It is better to be out of tune with the multitudes then out of tune with one's self.
2) It is better to suffer wrong than it is to cause it.

There are perspective issues here, the perspective of the interlocutors in the dialogue and what their perspective could possibly means to the City. Plato deals with these perspective issues in his rhetoric as well as the myth he tells as part of the dialogue.

What many philosophers call "the Socratic Paradox" is Socrates' view that no one intentionally does evil. It is called a "paradox" because it seems so counter-intuitive, yet Socrates had a reputation for being wise. There are several "solutions". The one offered by Plato is that when one does something . evil one mistakenly thinks one is doing something good; we always desire the good. So what do you think? Do you think it is possible to actually desire the bad, knowing that it is bad and that nothing good will come of it? — Mitchell

He is not completely correct. We are rational beings and we consider many factors when we decide. We might give to much weight to our self interest which is good from the person point of view but bad from social point of view. Things are relative.

Things are relative. — bahman

Are they? And if they are, they are relative in a relative way, or they are relative in an absolut way?

Are they? — Vajk

Yes.

And if they are, they are relative in a relative way, or they are relative in an absolut way? — Vajk

They are person dependent.

They are person dependent. — bahman

All of them?

Do you think it is possible to actually desire the bad, knowing that it is bad and that nothing good will come of it? — Mitchell

Yep, I have done so myself out of spite, anger, jealousy or bitterness, and have seen others do so. Also, I've stood at the ledge of a building or cliff and realized that I could choose to jump to my death or push someone for no reason other than being impulsive. I would count that as evil.

And then there are sociopaths who don't care about the good. To quote Batman's butler, "Some men just want to see the world burn".

I think those people might label good as being a form of societal power. In my opinion, our definition of good comes for the sum of society's emotional beliefs about the way we want things to be. We condemn people who use "bad" means in order to protect ourselves from being victim to those behaviors. I don't think it is fair to say that people view power as being more important than good because I view good as being a form of power itself. Its more like people who stray from the convention of morality are less interested in that kind of power and decide morality isn't necessary to get what they want. — MonfortS26

It's a tangled mess, our brains. So many theories floating around, some see eye to eye and others are antithetical. Morality is new on the evolutionary timeline but evil is much older. What we think should be is at odds with what was/is/will be.

To think the good is power is an equivocation. Power, bottomline, is control over other people - it's inherently wrong. Good is about equality, the absence of power, as I defined it.

That's how you define good though. Just because that is your belief on what good is, doesn't mean that it is an objective fact. To say that good is the absence of power is neglecting the fact that power is necessary for society to function. Stating that good is about equality and the absence of power is just a way for you to assert your worldview onto others, hoping that they will conform to those beliefs so that they never try to have power over you. Any declaration of evil on another is an attempt to influence their beliefs and actions.

ower, bottomline, is control over other people - it's inherently wrong. — TheMadFool

If this were the case, any attempt to influence another person would be an attempt to commit evil. Trying to influence someone is just a romantic way of saying trying to manipulate/control the beliefs of that person. Calling someone evil would be inherently evil. Moral beliefs are just one of many means of controlling the world around you.

I guess I need to be more discerning of the subtleties in the word ''power''. Thanks.

All of them? — Vajk

Ethical one.

Ethical one. — bahman

If you did not checked everything you should not say to others that it aplies on everything. (Also an Ethical one.)

If you did not checked everything you should not say to others that it aplies on everything. (Also an Ethical one.) — Vajk

You are correct. I should have been more specific.

I do not know, perhaps this is a seemingly good example.
If we talking about empty space:

nothing =

However to me, it looks like:

nothing = .........................................................................

Good and evil are ethical terms, and ethical terms are never inequivocally objective or subjective. (Ethics are a favorite Platonic instance of the metaxy, the in-between in which human beings must navigate).

Any deemed-to-be-evil person is doing good in his own (subjective) estimate. To use a fictional example, the Joker (from Batman) lusts after pleasure, derived from the shock his actions create. If one prefers real-life examples, your favorite dictator is insecure and yearns to impose his (internal) order upon a recalcitrant world, which will be far better (from his perspective) if he prevails.

The Platonic teaching in this matter is that you must learn to doubt your own judgment about good and evil; what you perceive to be good may actually be evil, and vice versa. Of course, Plato does not leave you hanging in the relativistic chasm; he provides you with the criteria for proper choosing, namely, concern for your immortal soul. As Aristotle would later formulate, you must "immortalize yourself" to the best of your abilities, and in order to do that you must downplay the lusts that keep you close to your mortal nature and reinforce the yearnings that attract you to your immortal nature.