SOCRATES MORAL PHILOSOPHY

INTRODUCTION

Socrates (470-399 B.C.) of Athens was one of the most influential thinkers

in the history of Western civilization. He was known for his Socratic

method, that is to question and question till you are satisfied of the

explanation and you get the full view of the answers plus you convince the

answerer of certain defects or errors in his beliefs or knowledge.

Peple viewed him with uneasiness in debates with them because even

though he expressly stated that he did not have any idea about an issue or

had only little of it, yet his ability in cross-questioning will weaken the

standing of those who allege to know beter than him.

Charged with religious heresy and corrupting the youth, he was convicted

and sentenced to death.

“The unexamined life is not worth living” – this quotation is the famous

precepts of Socrates. It is an emphasis on rationally determining moral and

social principles, which in turn justify our choices to behave in certain

ways. Specific moral and political action should be guided by reason, not

fear or favor.

To write something on Socrates is limited since there are no written

records of his work. Perhaps due to the fact that his words were put to an
end, without having any opportunity to accomplish them in his own

literature, through his tragic death. Had Socrates lived long enough, he

might not only be termed the Father of Ethics as he is named now but also a

scholar in the fields of jurisprudence. Nevertheless, we are lucky enough

since Plato (429-347 B.C.)2 in his dialogues, especially the early dialogues,

portrayed Socrates as the main cast; for instance, in Euthyphro, The

Apology, Crito and Phaedo. Plato lived to settle Socrates’ views, beside his

own, into great philosophical literature. These dialogues have been

discussed by some philosophical writers, old and new.

This writing is aimed to share with the legal generation of the millenium on

Socrates’ ethical and political beliefs plus their relevance on certain legal

concepts.

Perhaps the ideas may provide beneficial assistance to modern legal

philosophy. Time may not repeat itself, but history may.

“Neither of us knows anything of beauty or of goodness, but he thinks he

knows something when he knows nothing, and I, if I know nothing, at least

never suppose that I do. So it looks as though I really am a little

wiser than he, just in so far as I do not imagine myself to know things about

which I know nothing at all.”- Socrates.

 HIS IDEAS: ETHICAL BELIEFS AND THEIR RELEVANCE TO CERTAIN

LEGAL CONCEPTS

Socrates is known as the father of ethics. He advanced some unusual ideas

about how to be happy in life. In terms of everyday life and the dominantly

values of Western culture from Athens to the present day, Socrates’ moral

beliefs seem at best peculiar.

“The unexamined life is not worth living,” Socrates once observed.

However, he did not proceed like Sidartha Gautama Buddha or Confucius in

describing and outlining on how life should be handled. He did not try to

change people by preaching to them about the need for virtue. What

Socrates taught was a Socratic method of inquiry. He approached his fellow

Athenians individually, engaging them in philosophical dialogues that

tested the validity of their deepest beliefs. For instance, he would ask

someone what was the most important in life. If the person answered

“money”, for example, or “fame”, he would ask for an explanation. When the

person responded, Socrates would ask for more, pursuing every point of

the answer, trying to show the problems with the other person’s thinking.

Back and forth it went like that until Socrates had convinced his partner.

This is what known as the Socratic method.

When the Sophists3 claimed that they knew more than other people knew

of certain intellectual matters like definition of law, justice, morality or

piety, Socrates would proceed to them and lashed them with abundance of

questions so as to know as whether their knowledge is inherently credible

or otherwise not worthy of credit. For instance, against the received

wisdom that justice consists in keeping promises and

paying debts, Socrates put forth the example of a person faced with an

unusual situation: a friend from whom he borrowed a weapon has since

become insane but wants the weapon back. There was no exact and

satisfactory answer for this from Conventional theory of morality. Thus, it

meant that the traditional definition and understanding needed

immediate scrutiny and rephrase. From one point of view, once Socrates

was done with that, it seemed as if the Sophists were wrong in their beliefs

and he was right, but it was not actually meant to be a win-lose situation. It

was just meant to be a dialogue towards sharpening one’s knowledge and

reforming one’s ignorance.

However, this Socratic method of inquiry did not find favor those who were

inclined with conventional beliefs. This in turn led his enemies to put him

on trial, from thereon he was convicted on the ground of religious heresy

and corrupting the youth. This charge was seen by those who are in the

cocoons of conventional moral code as suitable.

However, they failed to see the Socratic method was actually trying to

reveal the ineffectiveness of the conventional theories which cannot stand

up to criticism as a necessary preliminary to the search for true knowledge.

Applying Socratic method, lawyers will be great persuaders and feared for

their abilities to magnificently cross examine witnesses and convince the

courts of ill-grounded testimonies. Applying Socratic method, police

investigation will run as an efficient tools in obtaining evidence. Applying

Socratic method, members of legislature becomes skilled

at discerning misconceptions of things, that is, they learn to recognize

ignorance, including their own.

Does this mean that Socrates only questioned, but never had ideas of his

own?

This is not right to say so because beside his method of inquiry, he also

pursued in the beliefs of goodness as something that can be known, even

though he did not himself profess to know it. He also thought that those

who know what good is are in fact good.

He was saying this because during his era, there was no clear demarcation

between what is good and what is in a person's own interests. The Greeks

believed that virtue is good both for the individual and for the community.

This belief needs scrutiny because there should be a marked demarcation

between goodness and self-interest. Sometimes a person claims that he

knows what is good but latter on he associates his manner of goodness

with his action which is purely done for his own personal interest.

According to Socrates, if a person who claims that he knows of goodness

does not act well, he then can be considered ignorant or mistaken of the

nature of goodness.

Socrates believed that all that we really need in order to be happy is to live

a moral life. Even though we suffer poverty, injustice, illness, or some other

misfortune, moral virtue is enough to guarantee our happiness. Happiness

or well-being depends directly on the goodness or badness of one’s soul. No

one ever wishes for anything but true good a.k.a. true happiness. However,

people lose this feeling because of their ignorance of its structure. For

instance, having adequate wealth or power is good, but

having them more than what is necessary is not really good. Knowledge of

true goodness without confusing it with anything else is needed to avoid

using strength, health, wealth, or opportunity wrongly. If a man has this

knowledge, he will always act on it, since to do otherwise would be to

prefer known misery to known happiness. If a man really knew, for

instance, that to commit a crime is worse than to suffer loss or pain or

death, no fear of these things would lead him to commit the crime. To the

professional Sophist, “goodness” is a neutral “accomplishment” that can

always be put to either of two uses, a good one or a bad one. To Socrates, in

contrast, knowledge of good is the one knowledge which lead to abstinence

from inappropriate actions, and if it involves possessions, then

such will be utilized in a proper manner. That is why, Socrates stressed on

the care or tending of one’s “soul,” to “make one's soul as good as possible”,

“making it like God,” and not to ruin one's life by placing

the care of body interest for possessions in front of the care of one’s soul.

The soul is the man, and if the soul is cared for, then happiness will

becomes its company.

Besides, Socrates believed that our greatest protection is moral virtue. This

is because virtue is the soul’s health and vice is the disease, an idea that

Plato later developed further. Even though someone may kill us, our virtue

makes it impossible for anyone to harm us. That is why, when we treat

someone unethically and escape unpunished, we hurt ourselves more than

we hurt the victim. If we do something wrong, Socrates believed that we

should seek someone to punish us with the same speed and care that we

use when we look for someone to cure us when we are sick. In this line, his

view goes eye to eye with the French legal doctrine of

proportionality, that is to inflict no further punishment to someone beyond

the parameters of harm he did. “Socrates ‘brought down philosophy from

heaven to earth’.”– Cicero.

HIS IDEAS: POLITICAL BELIEFS AND THEIR RELEVANCE TO CERTAIN

LEGAL CONCEPTS

Socrates’ political ideas are also associated to his ethical beliefs. In his

ethical beliefs he thought about purification by oneself of his own soul to

reach happiness, while in his political beliefs, he extended it further. He

viewed politics as the statesman's task of “tending” the souls of all his

fellow citizens and making them “as good as possible.”

Thus, for Socrates, the knowledge of good is also the foundation of all

statesmanship.

Socrates can be considered as a physician of the body politic, as he

promoted righteousness and temperance, the spiritual health of the

community. Socrates maintained that he alone deserved the name of

statesman, because he understood, as the men of action did not, that

knowledge of the absolutely good is the necessary and sufficient

condition of national well-being and felicity. Indeed, Plato's Republic may

fairly be viewed as a picture of life in a society governed by this Socratic

conviction. However, it is interesting to note that Socrates saw himself as

obliged to play no active role in politics, and he advocated no such activity

for his followers.

CONCLUSION

The irony is there, but it is aimed to achieve a clean ethical and political

behavior, both for individuals and the state at large.

REFERENCE

Brickhouse, Thomas C. and Smith, N. (Contributor). Socrates on Trial.

Princeton University Press. 1990.

Cornford, Francis M. Before and After Socrates. Cambridge University

Press. 1932.

Earle, William J. Introduction To Philosophy. Mc Graw-Hills Inc. 1992.

Kierkegaard, S. The Concept Of Irony, With Continual Reference To

Socrates. Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong

with Introduction and Notes. Princeton University Press. 1989.

Montuori, M. The Socratic Problem : The History-The Solutions: From the

18th Century to the Present Time 61 Extracts from 54 Authors in

Their Historical Context. John Benjamins Publishing Co. 1992.

Moore, Brooke N. and Bruder, K. Philosophy: The Power Of Ideas. 2nd

Edition. Mayfield Publishing Co. 1993.

Nelson, L. Socratic Method and Critical Philosophy. Translated by Thomas

K. Brown III. New York Dover Publications. 1965. (original

publication by Yale University Press, 1949)

Pojman, Louis P. Philosophy: The Pursuit of Wisdom. Wadsworth

Publishing Co. 1994.