Jack Danielsh

4 Pages 935 Words

Jack Daniel’s is a type of whiskey which contains alcohol, a drug that in moderate amounts can cause a euphoric feeling in the individual who consumed the drug. Large amounts, however, lead to nausea, decreased coordination, and alcohol poisoning. Daniel has consumed enough Jack Daniel’s that he has ended up with a case of alcohol poisoning (which is harmful). He has consumed the Jack Daniel’s unaware that the alcohol in it would lead to harm for him.
The folk psychological explanation for Daniel drinking the Jack Daniel’s is that he believed that by drinking a lot of Jack Daniel’s he would achieve something achieve something that he desired. The result of drinking that much whiskey is alcohol poisoning which is harmful. Socrates’ argument is that Daniel did not do this to intentionally harm himself. He claims that if Daniel knew that drinking the Jack Daniel’s would lead to alcohol poisoning, that would mean that Daniel desired to be harmed. Nobody desires to be harmed because harm means to be miserable and unhappy and nobody desires to be unhappy. Socrates argues that Daniel falsely believed that by drinking excessively he would achieve happiness. He did not know that the alcohol would lead to unhappiness or he would not have drank it.
Socrates’ argument is successful, it is a sound argument. Someone who disagrees with Socrates would argue that people either desire things that lead to harm but they believe that harm benefits, or they desire things that lead to harm and believe that harmful things harm. If there are people that desire harmful things under the false belief that harmful things lead to benefit, which is an obvious contradiction, then there are people who believe obvious contradictions. Nobody believes obvious contradictions. That means there are no people who desire harmful things knowing they are harmful but believe that harmful things benefit. The only argument against Socrates left is ...