In ‘The Consolation of Philosophy’, Boethius questions God’s perfection in his goodness and justice by pointing out the presence of evil people who are then not punished for their actions and vice versa for good people. He then tries to answer this by arguing for the fact that the wicked will always be punished by stating their powerlessness and lack of happiness. I therefore believe that through Boethius’s arguments, I will decide to physically coerce Alexandros.
Firstly, Boethius argues that evil never goes unpunished, even when it seems otherwise, because of God’s catechism. He states that good people always have power and wicked people do not, through the concept that human action depends on both power and will. Since happiness is the…show more content… He borrows Plato’s concept that the wicked are happier when they are punished than when they are not, because even if punishment surely results in suffering, Boethius recognizes that punishment rehabilitates the wicked and receiving it is a good, therefore making them happier. Punishment is therefore not retribution for wickedness, which is a different view from today’s society, where victims are pitied and victimizers are ensured to receive retribution that is equal to the actions that they inflicted upon the victims. However, in Boethius’s eyes, the wicked should be pitied and shown mercy, ‘like sick men being brought to the doctor, so that their guilt could be cut back by punishment like a malignant growth’, said in page 100. In my understanding, the previous statement only makes sense if the punishment appends something good to the wicked people who are punished. If the punishment does not add goodness to the wicked people that would mean that the punishment is not done for the purpose of rehabilitation but for retribution, which in turn makes the punisher do something that is not virtuous and has no good ends and means, which reduces happiness in both