“When a man takes a position that he believes to be right,” said Socrates, “or has been placed there by his commander, he must remain in his post without fear of death.” This is a quote from Plato’s “Apology,” section 29a, and summarises Socrates’ philosophy of life.
We must first make correct, virtuous decisions, and then we should implement them without defaulting, even in the face of massive social pressure, threats, financial or personal losses. If the circumstances turn against us, we should stay firm in our course of action as best we can. That’s what Socrates advised us to do.
I do not find it difficult to summarise Socrates’ philosophy of life, but I must immediately point out the errors it contains. I don’t want readers to assume that, if Socrates said it, it must be true, and there is nothing to discuss about it.
What could be possibly wrong about doing the right thing in life irrespective of the circumstances? Should we not place truth above anything else, even if we jeopardise our family and friends, our reputation, job, possessions, and physical survival?
Unanswered questions
Socrates’ stance has been presented as the standard of virtue for thousands of years. His courageous defence during the trial held in Athens in the year 400 BC was chronicled by Plato and Xenophon in great detail, and the story of Socrates’ committing suicide has been recounted in every philosophy course.
However, I must digress from them all by asking some key questions: How do we know for sure that our position is right, and that everybody else is wrong? It would not make sense to praise someone for persisting in harmful behaviour.
Furthermore, why should we assume that our position shall take precedence above everything else and everybody else? In the case of Socrates, his belief was that he was destined to hold debates in the Athenian marketplace, proving people wrong of their most cherished ideals, and making powerful enemies.
Plato’s “Apology,” section 38a, confirms that, for Socrates, there was nothing more important in life than conversing about truth, virtue and philosophy. He literally lived for his debates, as demonstrated by the numerous Plato’s dialogues that assign the central role to Socrates.
The criminal trial against Socrates shows that the citizens of Athens, or at least a group of influential citizens, did not agree with Socrates’ priorities; what Socrates viewed as positive was, in their eyes, a harmful annoyance, one that called for forceful countermeasures.
Meletus and Anytus, the prosecutors in the criminal trial, held a grudge against Socrates; and they weren’t the only ones. If we judge by the jury’s verdict, there must have been a strong agreement that Socrates deserved to be physically eliminated if Athenians wanted to preserve their mode of life.
An incomplete moral framework
The death penalty imposed upon Socrates was so excessive, outrageous and unusual that it has gone down in history as the epitome of injustice. Indeed, Socrates did not deserve the cruel and disproportionate punishment imposed by the jury, but it is fair to ask if his philosophy of life had been correct all along.
I posit that Socrates’ philosophy of life contained vast errors and that those had contributed to turning Socrates into a victim of a biased legal procedure. If we want to do well in life, it’s up to us to understand where Socrates went wrong, so that we do not repeat his mistakes.
Despite Socrates’ steady praise for virtue, Plato’s dialogues fail to give us a clear picture of what Socrates understood to be good beyond “seeking truth” and “caring for one’s soul.”
Those are tautological statements where virtue is declared to be virtuous, truth is declared to be truthful, and the care for one’s soul is declared spiritually beneficial.
I do not think that anyone would object to those statements. The love for virtue is as universal as the love for warm, fresh bread and apple pie, but does not constitute a complete ethical system. I am afraid that it takes much more than the love for virtue to provide a moral framework for human decisions.
Hierarchy of values
Not only did Socrates lack a complete ethical framework, but he also lacked a rational hierarchy of values. He didn’t pay sufficient attention to the fact that, in everyday life, conflicts of priorities arise all the time.
In the lack of clear ethical priorities, how should we decide whether to do A or B? And how should we adjudicate conflicts between people who pursue conflicting goals? Shall someone’s right to his property, for instance his orchard, take precedence over a hungry person’s desire to enter the orchard and eat the fruit?
Despite his exhortation to “live an examined life,” as quoted by Plato in “Apology,” section 38a, Socrates incurred massive ethical inconsistencies and those eventually did him in. Suicide proved an acknowledgement of defeat rather than the glorious end of a philosophical rebel.
I can only express my dismay at the relatively small number of philosophical condemnations of Socrates’ suicide in history. I would like to see the majority position shift in this direction, but I understand that discussing Ancient Greece philosophy is far from being a fashionable pastime.
To illustrate my point, I’ll just point to a key inconsistency in Socrates’ ethics; while he claimed in “Apology” that the love of truth should take priority above all, he changed his position in “Crito,” when he refused the opportunity to escape, arguing that, if he did so, he would undermine Athenian institutions.
Socrates’ philosophy of life was admirable in many aspects, but his statements about virtue should be carefully assessed. I would rather exercise caution rather than trusting blindly the words of a great philosopher who, like everyone else, showed some human frailties.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “Thriving in difficult times.”