Most of Socrates’ moral concepts are erroneous, but they are still worth studying because they help us sharpen our intellect. To do the right thing in life, it’s not enough to know what’s bad and what’s good. In addition, we need to be capable of making correct decisions quickly, especially in crisis situations, and we need to be strong enough to withstand criticism.
Socrates was great at withstanding criticism. His courage is what made him go down in history as the discoverer of critical thinking. He was willing to debate any subject with anybody in public, and question any argument, no matter how popular, that lacked solid grounding.
Plato’s “Apology” conveys Socrates’ courage excellently, in particular in his address to the jury, when he stated that he was not willing to lead a life in which he wasn’t allowed to practise philosophy.
Indeed, the first and foremost element of Socrates’ morality is the preeminence of virtue, that is, each person’s obligation to seek the truth and behave accordingly. When Socrates stated in “Apology” that he regarded daily conversations about morality as the best aspect of human life, he was speaking his heart out.
Virtue as the highest good
I consider the first element of Socrates’ moral philosophy as a statement of general direction. The statement simply affirms that philosophy, and virtue in particular, is crucial for leading a proper life, and that we should seek the truth relentlessly.
However, no one can make a hundred decisions a day on the basis of a general statement. If the pursuit of virtue is a priority in our life, what does virtue mean exactly? Does Socrates’ view of virtue include ambition, self-reliance and personal initiative, or did he define virtue as modesty, altruism and patience?
The complete works of Plato (427-347 BC) take up more than one thousand pages, from which Socrates’ speeches take about one third. We cannot say that we don’t have sufficient materials about Socrates, nor that he lacked the opportunity to convey his ethical ideals. No, the lack of historical materials is not the real problem.
The real problem is that, no matter how many times I read those one thousand pages, I cannot find sufficient elements to paint a complete picture of Socrates’ ethical convictions.
For instance, I wish I could have found definite answers to these questions: Did Socrates dislike physical work because he considered it below his dignity? Why did he end most debates without arriving at a clear conclusion?
Socrates did not make the picture any clearer by affirming that virtue equals knowledge. He meant that ethical behaviour arises from knowing what’s good and what’s bad. If someone knows, then he will do the right thing, Socrates believed.
Virtue equals knowledge
Plato elaborated this subject in great detail in his dialogue “Protagoras” and later confirmed his doctrine in the dialogue “Gorgias.” There is no doubt that, in those dialogues, Socrates maintains the thesis that virtue is knowledge, and that people who possess ethical knowledge, will not willingly commit evil acts.
Even if we questioned the historical accuracy of “Gorgias” and “Protagoras,” I would still consider that Socrates held those views, and that they were not just invented by Plato and attributed to Socrates just to benefit from Socrates’ prestige.
Why am I convinced that Socrates did maintain that virtue equals knowledge? Because this idea shaped Socrates’ defence speech in “Apology,” both in the version written by Plato and in the one written by Thucydides.
Socrates, during the criminal trial held in Athens in the year 400 BC, had argued that his debates, although unorthodox and controversial, should draw a positive moral rating from the jury because, in those debates, Socrates had dispensed great wisdom.
Since wisdom equals knowledge, Socrates’ debates should not be categorised as impious or as sources of corruption for the youth. Socrates then quoted the Oracle of Delphi, which on one occasion, had affirmed that nobody in the world was wiser than Socrates.
I do not need extensive arguments to prove that virtue does not equal knowledge. Socrates was obviously wrong and there is no excuse for making this mistake. He possessed sufficient knowledge of history and literature to tell that educated people sometimes behave abominably.
In the “Apology,” Socrates mentioned that he had fought in several wars in which Athens had been involved. Did Socrates believe that every opponent of Athens in those wars had been evil just because he lacked sufficient wisdom?
What about the death sentence imposed on Socrates at the end of the trial? Did the jury make a dire mistake just because its members lacked sufficient knowledge? Or did they dictate a wrong sentence because they were biased and they wanted to get rid of Socrates?
The equivalence between virtue and knowledge, the second element in Socrates’ ethical views, is mistaken, dangerous, and indefensible. I do not think that, despite Socrates’ contributions to philosophy, we should refrain from condemning this error.
Do not do wrong
The third key concept in Socrates’ ethics is the idea that it is preferable to suffer wrong than to do wrong. Plato’s “Apology” records this principle, and Socrates’ line of defence takes it to the extreme.
Apparently, Socrates preferred to be sentenced to death in the criminal trial rather than “do wrong,” which in his case, it would have meant renouncing to living “an examined life.” It’s accurate to depict this moral concept as pre-Christian, although Socrates’ motivation was not based on theology or revelation.
My criticism of this third concept is that, by opposing doing wrong to suffering wrong, Socrates created a false dichotomy. The way Socrates and Plato presented it, it seems that life is full of do-or-die situations, but is it? Do we constantly face the choice of suffering injustice or committing an injustice?
I do not think so. Socrates and Plato were presenting a pre-Christian doctrine, where suffering due to injustice is regarded ethically superior to retaliation or determined self-defence.
In the nineteenth century, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) would speak in favour of the opposite choice. He considered retaliation or determined self-defence superior to suffering due to an injustice, and branded Christian ethics as wrong.
Socrates created the dichotomy five centuries before Jesus preached humility and mildness. Nietzsche argued later that one should totally abandon humility and mildness, and adopt the opposite stance.
A false dichotomy
I view Socrates’ dichotomy as false because it doesn’t reflect the human experience. Civilisation, ancient or modern, rests on collaboration and trade, not on mansuetude or aggressiveness.
Socrates’ choice for suffering is, as a principle, as wrong as Nietzsche’s choice for retaliation or strong contestation. I don’t regard any of those as a paragon of virtue, and I think that we should think twice before joining the ranks of one or the other.
The three key ethical concepts presented by Socrates do not constitute a finished doctrine. They are insufficient to guide us in everyday life in the hundreds of major and minor decisions that we must make each week.
Why has Socrates’ moral philosophy attained great prestige? Because, despite its gaps and inconsistencies, it represents a step forward compared with prior philosophers.
Neither Pythagoras, Thales of Miletus, Heraclitus, or other pre-Socratic thinkers had devoted vast efforts to defining virtue and the path to happiness. In contrast, Socrates was primarily a moralist, both in theory and practice.
The fact that Socrates’ third moral concept (suffering wrong is better than doing wrong) contains pre-Christian elements did not hurt, of course, the popularity of Socrates and Plato during the Middle Ages.
The Hellenistic philosopher Plotinus (205-270 AD) helped spread Plato’s doctrines in the Middle Ages, and St Augustine (354-430 AD) indirectly incorporated some of those doctrines in his work. Socrates, as the underlying influence in Plato, was carried along all the way.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “Consistency: The key to permanent stress relief.”