Good, bad and in between
SocratesNow is there anything, among the things that are, that is not either good or bad or in between, neither good nor bad?
PolusInescapably, Socrates.
SocratesThen do you say that wisdom and health and wealth and the other things of that sort are good, and their opposites bad?
PolusI do.
SocratesAnd by the things that are neither good nor bad, do you mean such things as share sometimes in the good, sometimes in evil and sometimes in neither—sitting, for instance, and walking and running and going to sea, and again stones and wood and the other things of that sort? Isn’t that what you mean? Or are there other things you call neither good nor bad?
PolusNo, those.
SocratesThen do people do these in-between things, when they do them, for the sake of the good ones, or the good ones for the sake of the in-between?
PolusThe in-between for the sake of the good, surely.
SocratesSo when we walk, we walk pursuing the good, thinking it better; and, conversely, when we stand still, we stand still for the sake of the same thing, the good. Or isn’t it?
PolusYes.
SocratesThen don’t we also kill, if we kill anyone, and banish people and take away their property, thinking it better for us to do these things than not?
PolusCertainly.
SocratesThen it is for the sake of the good that those who do all these things do them.
PolusI do say so.
SocratesNow didn’t we agree that what we do for the sake of something is not what we want, but the thing for the sake of which we do it?
PolusExactly.
SocratesThen we don’t want to slaughter people, or to banish them from the cities, or to take away their property, simply as such; but if these things are beneficial, we want to do them, and if they are harmful, we don’t want them. For it is good things that we want, as you say yourself, and we don’t want the things that are neither good nor bad, nor the bad ones. Isn’t it so? Do I seem to you to be telling the truth, Polus, or not? Why don’t you answer?
PolusTrue.