A Socratic dialogue would begin with the essential question. In this case, the question might be “How would you define evil” or “What would be considered evil.” The answer of this would then lead to questions and discussion about experiences with or of evil. After having discussed this topic you might arrive at a value statement about the nature of evil. What assumptions or presumptions are indicated by this value statement? How are these biased? What do they say about the objectivity or subjectivity of the persons involved in the dialogue? What principles can we arrive at with regard to opinions of evil based upon the conclusions arrived at through the Socratic dialogue?