For example, in a discussion of "being truthful," one student responded to a series of counterexamples by refining the rule "Never give false information." She posed counterexamples to each version of the rule she came up with, but in responding to this counterexample she tried to refine the rule by adding another qualification to the rule itself, generating an ever more complex rule. Here is the series of qualifications to the rule she came up with:
Never give false information.
Never intentionally give false information
Never intentionally give false information unless it is about something trivial
Never intentionally give false information unless it is about something trivial and is necessary
Never intentionally give false information unless it is about something trivial and unless it is necessary for the well being of others
Never intentionally give false information unless it is about something trivial and unless it is necessary for the well being of others and the greater good.
In doing this, the author was following the basic mechanics of counterexamples-followed-by-refinements. But she was doing so in a way that could never end up making progress toward formulating description of the essence of "being truthful" representing something only and always admirable.
The reason for this is because, no matter how sophisticated a rule you come up with for acting truthfully, someone could memorize the rule and act according to this rule for very many different kinds of motives. A person could act according to this rule merely because of fear of punishment of someone who gave her this rule and threatened to punish her severely for breaking it. Worse, a terrorist or cynical politician could memorize and follow the rule to gain the confidence and support of others, in order to exploit or destroy them. Following a rule, no matter how good the rule itself, can never represent something only and always admirable.
Thus one result of Socratic reasoning is that a virtue-essence representing something only and always purely admirable, must always consist in something internal to a person. This is inherent in the notion of a "virtue," which is not a behavior but an internal habit of mind, a trait of a person's character or personality that manifests itself in admirable conduct observable to others, but is not in itself directly visible to others. In the case of the virtue of kindness, for example, habitual motivations and attitudes ingrained in a kind person will be spontaneously activated in a situation that calls for kindness. Only a person who lacks this ingrained character trait and habitual set of attitudes and motivations will need to consult a rule telling her how to act kindly.
*****
Responding to a counterexample by saying what the individual person in the story should have done, not only stays on the level of external behavior, but also, this only addresses the particular situation of this particular person. It will not end up with a general description of a character trait that someone else can use as an ideal model for self-molding and character formation.
*****
Focusing on concrete behavior, or rules for concrete behavior, is a manifestation of general human concrete-mindedness that is one of the most important, but perhaps the most difficult, of the things that must be overcome to resolve the moral problems and confusions that Platonism addresses. It is so much easier to describe behavior and give rules for behavior, than it is to talk about and give clear, precise, detailed descriptions of particular motivations. This is why it is especially important, when responding to counterexamples, to force yourself to move away from a focus on visible behavior to a focus on invisible motives, attitudes, mental abilities, and habitual value-priorities that are the essence of any particular virtue.