Sources · Doing wrong or suffering it
This house believes it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong.
Fact bank v1 · 12 cards
This is a philosophy motion, so the judge never rules either side's view true or false. These cards say what philosophers generally accept, and cover facts such as who argued what.
- BSW-01
“Socrates argued that it is better to suffer an injustice than to commit one.”
What philosophers generally accept
Confirmed: in Plato's dialogue the Gorgias, Socrates argues that doing wrong is worse than being wronged. So if you must pick one, you should choose to be wronged.
His reason is about the soul, meaning your inner self. Doing wrong damages your own soul, and he saw that as the worst thing you can do to yourself. He even said a wrongdoer should want to be punished, because punishment cleans the soul. His opponent Polus agreed that doing wrong is more shameful, but said being wronged is still worse.
“Socrates infuriates Polus with the argument that it is better to suffer an injustice than commit one”
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy·SocratesPeer-reviewed research · 20 Jun 2026 ↗Further sources for this card
- BSW-02
“Socrates refused to escape from prison, even though it cost him his life, because escaping would mean doing wrong.”
What philosophers generally accept
Confirmed: in Plato's Crito, Socrates turns down his friend's plan to escape. He says escaping would wrongly harm the laws, and one must never do wrong, even to pay back a wrong.
His friend Crito had bribed the guards, so escape was possible, but Socrates would give up his life rather than go against his beliefs. He said acting wrongly badly injures the soul, much as disease harms the body. Scholars read this as a rejection of revenge: you should not pay back harm with harm.
“this violates his bedrock principle that one must never do wrong, even in return for a wrong”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Plato's Shorter Ethical WorksPeer-reviewed research · 18 Dec 2022 ↗Further sources for this card
- BSW-03
“In Plato's Gorgias, Callicles argues that by nature it is worse and more shameful to suffer wrong than to do it.”
What philosophers generally accept
Confirmed: Callicles says doing wrong is only more shameful by convention, meaning human custom. By nature, he says, suffering wrong is worse, and true justice is for the superior to rule the inferior and get a bigger share.
Callicles thought everyday rules about fairness were made up by the weak majority to hold back the strong. Later thinkers such as Nietzsche picked up this idea. We know nothing about Callicles outside Plato's writing, and Plato may have invented him.
“by nature all that is worse is also more shameful, like suffering what’s unjust”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Callicles and ThrasymachusPeer-reviewed research · 5 Sept 2025 ↗ - BSW-04
“In Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus argues that justice is just whatever benefits the powerful.”
What philosophers generally accept
Confirmed: Thrasymachus says justice is nothing more than whatever benefits the stronger. He explains that every government makes laws that serve itself and then calls those laws just.
He also praises the tyrant, a ruler who is completely unjust. Experts still argue about what exactly he meant, because he says several things that do not fit together neatly. Later in the Republic, Glaucon restates his challenge, and Socrates tries to show that being just is good for your soul.
“Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Callicles and ThrasymachusPeer-reviewed research · 5 Sept 2025 ↗Further sources for this card
- BSW-05
“Socrates proved his case in the Gorgias, and even Callicles had to admit he was right.”
What philosophers generally accept
Socrates does beat Polus in argument, and he shows that Callicles' views contradict each other. But Callicles never gives in. He says he has only been answering to please Gorgias, and he leaves Socrates to finish the argument alone.
Callicles says Polus only lost because he was too ashamed to say what he really thought. Socrates' arguments only target part of Callicles' view, and many readers are left feeling that Callicles' real position was never disproved.
“Callicles also shrugs off refutation by claiming that he has been answering only to please Gorgias”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Callicles and ThrasymachusPeer-reviewed research · 5 Sept 2025 ↗ - BSW-06
“Plato's Ring of Gyges story proves that anyone would do wrong if they knew they could get away with it.”
What philosophers generally accept
In Plato's Republic, the story of a ring that makes you invisible is told by Glaucon, who is playing devil's advocate. He and his brother say they are not convinced that being unjust is better. Socrates then argues that being just is good for your soul in itself, not just for the rewards.
The ring is a made-up 'what if' story, not evidence about real people. A big real-world test found something the story would not predict. Researchers handed in more than 17,000 'lost' wallets in 355 cities across 40 countries. In virtually all countries, people were more likely to return wallets with more money in them. The researchers linked this to caring about the owner and not wanting to see yourself as a thief.
“the brothers play devil’s advocate by unfolding a scathing picture of their society’s attitude towards justice”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Plato's Ethics: An OverviewPeer-reviewed research · 1 Feb 2023 ↗ - BSW-07
“Doing serious harm to others damages the person who does it.”
What philosophers generally accept
Studies of soldiers back this up in part. Among 2,797 US soldiers back from Iraq, 40% said they had killed or been responsible for killing. Even after allowing for how much combat they saw, killing predicted symptoms of PTSD (a stress illness that can follow a terrible event), alcohol abuse, anger and relationship problems.
A study of Vietnam veterans found the same kind of link. Psychologists use the term 'moral injury' for the lasting harm that can follow doing, failing to stop, or seeing acts that break your deep moral beliefs. But killing in war is not always wrongdoing, and these studies show a link, not proof of cause.
“Even after controlling for combat exposure, killing was a significant predictor of posttraumatic disorder (PTSD) symptoms, alcohol abuse, anger, and relationship problems.”
PubMed, US National Library of Medicine·The impact of reported direct and indirect killing on mental health symptoms in Iraq war veterans (Journal of Traumatic Stress 23(1))Government / parliament · 1 Feb 2010 ↗Further sources for this card
- PubMed, US National Library of Medicine (record of Journal of Traumatic Stress 22(5), 2009) · The impact of killing in war on mental health symptoms and related functioning ↗
- PubMed, US National Library of Medicine (record of Clinical Psychology Review 29(8), 2009) · Moral injury and moral repair in war veterans: a preliminary model and intervention strategy ↗
- BSW-08
“Most people would rather hurt someone else than suffer pain themselves.”
What philosophers generally accept
In two lab studies in London, most people valued a stranger's pain more than their own. They paid more to spare a stranger electric shocks than to spare themselves, and wanted more money to shock a stranger than to shock themselves.
The studies were small, with 39 and 41 people making the choices, and used mildly painful shocks. Real-life harms are far bigger, so results may differ. The same people still kept most of their money when offered the chance to give to charity, so they were not selfless about everything.
“Our results provide evidence for a circumstance in which people care more for others than themselves.”
PubMed Central, US National Library of Medicine·Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making (PNAS 111(48))Government / parliament · 2 Dec 2014 ↗ - BSW-09
“If wrongdoers are never punished, people stop cooperating, so letting others wrong you only rewards them.”
What philosophers generally accept
A well-known lab experiment found that cooperation thrived when people could punish those who did not cooperate, and broke down when punishment was ruled out.
People punished cheats even when it cost them and gained them nothing. Bad feelings toward the cheats seemed to drive this. But fairly punishing a wrongdoer is not the same as doing wrong yourself, and this was a lab experiment, not real-life harm.
“We show that cooperation flourishes if altruistic punishment is possible, and breaks down if it is ruled out.”
Nature·Altruistic punishment in humans (Nature 415)Peer-reviewed research · 10 Jan 2002 ↗ - BSW-10
“Game theory shows you should always hit back: the winning strategy in Axelrod's famous tournaments was Tit for Tat.”
What philosophers generally accept
Tit for Tat did win both of Robert Axelrod's computer tournaments, and it does hit back. But it never cheats first, and it forgives. When players can make mistakes, experts mostly think winning strategies need to forgive more, so game theory does not show you should always hit back.
Tit for Tat starts by cooperating, then copies the other player's last move. Axelrod said it did well partly because it never cheats first, partly because it hits back so it is hard to take advantage of, and partly because it forgives once the other side stops cheating. The eight top scorers were all 'nice' strategies that never cheated first. The second tournament had 63 entries. For games where mistakes happen, experts have studied a 'generous' version that, with the usual scoring, skips hitting back after 25% of cheats. And these games count points, not right and wrong.
“It is nice, meaning that it is never the first to defect.”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Prisoner's DilemmaPeer-reviewed research · 24 Oct 2025 ↗ - BSW-11
“Defending yourself against an attacker is not doing wrong.”
What philosophers generally accept
Apart from strict pacifists (people who think all violence is wrong), there is broad agreement in ethics and law that harming an attacker in self-defence can be allowed. There are limits: the harm must be necessary, and it must not be out of proportion to the threat.
For example, if breaking an attacker's arm would stop them, killing them would be wrong. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that people keep a right to defend themselves even against their own government when their lives are in danger. Philosophers still disagree about exactly why self-defence is allowed.
“With the exception of strict pacifists, there is broad consensus in morality and law that defensive harm can be permissible in cases like this.”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Self-DefensePeer-reviewed research · 18 Sept 2026 ↗Further sources for this card
- BSW-12
“The Stoics taught that no one else can truly harm you; only your own bad choices can.”
What philosophers generally accept
Confirmed: the Stoic thinker Epictetus held that the only real good is being a good person (virtue), and the only real harm is acting badly (vice). For Stoics, losing money, health or even your life was not a true harm.
Stoics called things like health, wealth and pain 'indifferents'. You may prefer some of them, but they do not make your life better or worse. Epictetus knew hardship himself: he came to Rome as a slave when he was a boy.
“the only harm that anyone can come to is to engage in affairs motivated by vice”
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy·EpictetusPeer-reviewed research · 13 Sept 2025 ↗Further sources for this card
The judge is an AI model. It can only rule on claims these cards cover. Everything else stays unverified, and it never rules on opinions. See every motion's cards.