Final answer:
Socrates argued that people commit evil due to ignorance and if they understood what was right, they would act accordingly. He further suggested a clear, although complex, distinction between right and wrong can be discerned through education. Differences in societal moral principles do not preclude a common understanding of ethics, supported by our brain's innate moral faculties.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Socrates, evil is the result of ignorance, and if people were aware of what was right, they would invariably choose that option because we inherently aim for what we perceive as good for us. By this logic, individuals who act wrongly are not doing so because they believe their wrongful actions to be good; rather, they are mistaken in their understanding of what is good. Socrates' position suggests that there is a complicated but clear difference between right and wrong, as the capacity for discernment depends on education and understanding, rather than an inherent inability to distinguish them.
Regarding the question of whether Socrates would remain in prison or choose exile, Socrates' consistent adherence to his principles suggests that even at the age of 37, he would have likely remained in prison. His choices reflected his belief in living a virtuous life in accordance with his philosophical principles, no matter the personal cost.
While societies have varying views on moral principles, studies have begun to show that our brains are wired with a moral faculty that guides our intuitive judgments of right and wrong. These intuitions are influenced by our cultural environment, but they also reflect a commonality in human ethical understanding, indicating that such a discernment between right and wrong is possible and perhaps innate to some extent.