Philosophy began way before the fourth century when people started to seek rational explanations for phenomena which were not well explained by traditional beliefs. Some of these ancient philosophers included Heraclitus of Ephesus and Democritus of Abdera. However, Socrates was the first moral philosopher who sought the ethical explanation of the required standard of living. The philosopher taught on many topics such as education, politics, and economy. Despite having no documentation materials at the time, most of Socrates' works was written by Plato, his student. The discussion seeks to explore Socrates’ teachings in regards to three areas.
The first section of the paper is an explanation of Socrates’ views on heeding popular opinions on moral matters. The discussion justifies that the Philosopher's teachings require individuals to seek knowledge and be in a position to question all the opinions concerning moral matters rather than merely heeding to them (Dhillon, Natasha and Jun Lim, p.50). The concerns expressed by Socrates are that popular opinions are beliefs which are not based on facts thus cannot be considered to be correct. According to Socrates, one should consider an opinion to be moral if it brings internal harmony, promotes the virtue of goodness, is backed with evidence and encourages one to constantly seek for knowledge thus enjoying the steady pleasure. For example, Socrates argues that the Athenian government’s popular opinion that it is moral to respect the politicians’ views is wrong and one ought not to heed to them. In fact, the philosopher uses the allegory of the cave to explain that heeding to popular opinions is like the prisoners who follows a man who has luckily tossed the right side of a coin in a game.
Secondly, the discussion seeks to find out if Socrates believed the laws to which he was tried and convicted to be fair. In the research, it is noted that Socrates believed in the laws but not the jury who had the responsibility of interpreting and applying the laws (Jacobson, 3). His defenses against the accusations of Meletus justify that the philosopher respected all the Athenian laws under which he had lived for seventy years. The philosopher was charged with three accounts of disloyalty to the laws. The charges were; disrespect to the state-sanctioned gods, corrupting the youths and harming others by being wicked. In his defense, the philosopher explained that he taught spiritual matters hence believed in the divine power, and he could not intentionally harm others without harming himself. On disrespecting the laws, he argued that he did not turn the youth against the laws but instead taught them the truth, and it was not the duty of Meletus to interpret the laws of the land.
The final section discusses if Socrates would have been wrong had he escaped from jail. The research paper explains that Socrates’ virtue of goodness and morality could have been watered had he decided to escape jail (Jacquette, 1). In his response to Crito, He mentioned that escape would be an injustice to his soul and to the Athenians who believed in him, He also explained that he was loyal to the laws of the land and could not run away from his agreement with the government to obey the laws. Finally, the philosopher explained that the majority opinion is not always correct and Crito ought not to have been afraid of what others would have thought about him if he failed to help him escape.
Socrates
Introduction
Socrates, a classical philosopher from the Greek community, was the first moral philosopher of his time. His teachings led to his death having been sentenced by the government for corrupting the minds of the populace. Socrates was forced to drink hemlock, a poisonous mixture which killed him (Dhillon, Natasha and Jun Lim 50). Nevertheless, Socrates’ teachings on morality and the famous Socratic method of questioning had enormous impact as was documented by Plato, Socrates’ student. The purpose of the paper is to explain the Philosopher’s view on the expectations of one to heed on moral matters and if Socrates considered just the laws under which he was tried and convicted. Finally, the paper takes a stand on if the philosopher would have been wrong to escape.
Socrates Views on One’s Responsibility of Heeding Popular Opinions about Moral Matters
Socrates' perceptions of moral matters were immortalized by Plato in "The Republic" in which the conversation between Socrates and Glaucon, the philosopher’s friend, are recorded. According to Socrates, an individual is under no obligation to heed popular opinions on moral matters because of various reasons (Dhillon, Natasha and Jun Lim 50). First, Socrates believed and taught that morality is something that brings internal harmony hence should not be considered absolute. For example, if philanthropy makes one happy, it cannot be generalized as moral because other people may be sad if deemed philanthropists even if they give back to the society. According to Socrates, one should only heed popular opinions which inspire him or her to have self-discipline, morality and the courage of seeking knowledge and wisdom. According to the philosopher, people have different souls divided into appetites, spirited and mind thus cannot be forced to have a common belief about a moral matter. He often urged the students to seek self-knowledge which would absolve them of any general belief. Socrates also mentioned that knowledge was the most powerful tool one would have as through it; it is possible to know what is morally right or wrong. Socrates' view that people who lacked knowledge were to be taught by their counterparts who had gained the insight proved the point that according to the philosopher, one ought not to be forced to agree to popular opinions unless they are convinced in their belief which has to be backed with facts derived from knowledge.
The second reason why Socrates' views declined to obligate individuals in heeding popular opinions about moral matters was that, according to him, opinions are mere beliefs and not knowledge. According to Socrates, there is a clear distinction between knowledge and belief and general opinions lack facts thus people should not follow them. When asked by Glaucon about his definition of belief, Socrates said that a philosopher had knowledge while everyone else a belief. In justifying his position on knowledge and truth and why individuals should not rely on popular opinions without having evidence to back them, especially if the ideas are on moral matters, Socrates used the allegory of the cave. According to the imagery recorded by Plato in ‘The Republic,” the philosopher justifies why popular opinions are catalysts for ignorance in the society ((Dhillon, Natasha and Jun Lim 56). For example, Socrates believed that the popular belief of obeying the Athenian government even if it brutalized the citizens was as a result of people heeding beliefs without questioning their moral standings. In the allegory, the philosopher uses shadow, the cave, escape and return of the prisoners to the cave to illustrate how popular opinions can be detrimental in the society and why people should not be obligated to believe in them in regards to moral matters. For example, the cave in the imagery shows how education system among the Athens is only based on empirical evidence hence limiting the capacity of free thinkers in the society. The shadow in the allegory is used to explain how politicians bank on popular opinions on moral matters to exploit the society. According to Socrates, the ancient politicians who claimed to know everything had not gained knowledge and only had a “shadow of the truth.”The game in the allegory was also used by the philosopher to explain why, on moral matters, one ought not to heed to the popular opinions. According to Socrates, prisoners could play a game of predicting the right side of a coin before tossing it. If one predicted the right side, the other prisoners would follow him or her believing that he or she was the most intelligent. However, it would later turn out that the perceived leader had no knowledge but merely relying on luck. The philosopher explained that popular opinions are like the game. Finally, the danger of following popular views was illustrated by the symbols of escape and return to the cave after seeing the ‘sun.’ The sun referred to individual knowledge which people get, and the escape referred to the benefit of making morally upright choices after receiving knowledge and wisdom. However, return to the cave signified the section of the population whose thinking is shaped by the popular opinions and are unwilling to seek knowledge to make morally upright decisions.
The third reason why Socrates believes that people should not compulsorily heed popular opinions or moral matters is that such opinions hinder them from enjoying the real pleasure in the society. Socrates was concerned by the moral beliefs of the Athens in which sex was considered as the most recognizable source of pleasure as rulers could marry many wives for their marital satisfaction. Consequently, Socrates noted in his conversation with Glaucon that, “…they are not satisfied by anything real; they do not experience steady, pure pleasure”(Dhillon, Natasha and Jun Lim 58). Since the Athens believed that sex was moral and people could engage in it at the expense of intense philosophical discussions, Socrates noted that popular opinions could prevent one from seeking knowledge, the only steady pleasure which the philosopher recognized.
Finally, according to Socrates, poplar opinions on moral matters prevent one from attaining goodness which is vital for a just life. Socrates tells Glaucon that , “…anyone who is ignorant about the goodness of moral and right conduct would make a second-rate guardian of morality and right” (Dhillon, Natasha and Jun Lim 59)to explain to him why generally accepted ideas on moral issues can prevent one from questioning their repercussions and ultimately missing out on the moral virtue of goodness.
Socrates’ Views on the Laws under Which He Was Tried and Convicted
Socrates was sentenced to death by a jury of five hundred Athens in 399 B.C.E. His chief Accuser, Meletus, proposed two charges for which Socrates was ultimately sentenced to death. Socrates considered the laws of the Athens to be fair even though the very laws were used to try and convict him. There are various justifications as to why he considered these laws to be fair (Jacobson 2).
First, the jury allowed Socrates to cross-examine Meletus in a process known as ‘elenchus.' When asking Meletus to justify his first charge of being a bad influence on the youth, Socrates noted that the law of the land prohibited bad influence and he agreed to the very laws himself. However, he did not agree that he had a bad impact on the youth. Socrates argued that if laws made people have a positive influence in the society, and it was the duty of the jury and assembly counselors to know and keep the law, then it was impossible for Meletus' argument to stand. Using the analogy that only a horse trainee had a chance of influencing his horse, Socrates argued that Meletus failed to demonstrate how ordinary men could control the youth if they did not teach them anything. The defense proves that Socrates believed the law of lousy influence was fair (Jacobson 3).
The second proof that Socrates considered the laws for which he was tried and convicted fair was his defense on the accusation or charge that he did not believe in the gods of Athens (Jacquette 5).While cross-examining Meletus, Socrates insinuated that Meletus was confusing him with Anaxagoras who refused to accept the state gods. Socrates asked Meletus if one would believe in music without believing in musicians. Socrates then reminded Meletus of his affidavit in which he had sworn that the philosopher taught about supernatural powers. Socrates the concluded that being that Meletus had noted his teachings, he had to believe in the divine power to educate about spiritual matters. Consequently, Socrates mentioned that he had not, at any of his teachings, said any other gods apart from the state sectioned ones.
According to Jacquette (3), the third evidence that Socrates considered the laws of the land to be fair was his defense on the accusation that he was wicked and thus he was a liability in the society. According to Socrates, the law requiring citizens to desist from causing harm to others was fair. Socrates argued that if it were true that he was wicked and he was causing harm to others, he too would be harmed in the process. Logically, he argued, it was impossible for anyone to intentionally harm himself hence the jury was to note that even if such accusations were real, they were unintentional and the right choice for the judges was to correct him rather than sentencing him.
However, Socrates did not believe in the moral knowledge of the implementers of the laws which he defended as fair. Before the judgment, he referred to the jury as “men of Athens” and only called them “judges” after he was found guilty and sentenced to death.
Socrates on Escaping from Jail
Socrates had a wealthy friend known as Crito who offered him a chance to escape the prison. Crito had three reasons why he felt escaping the Athenian jails was the correct decision. First, Crito feared that his reputation would be damaged if he let Socrates stay in jail because of his wealth. He wanted to use his influence to help Socrates so that his friends would not think that he preferred wealth to his friend, Socrates. Secondly, Crito argued that people could be paid off to get Socrates off the prisons because he was too relevant to the society. Finally, Crito believed that Socrates owed his children more responsibility than he did to the society because, as a father, he was to be there for their education and moral support.
However, Socrates argued differently and said that it would have been a wrong decision to escape. First, Socrates believed that an immoral life was not worth living. Consequently, he said that even though the majority had the power to sentence him to death, it was not a right decision to listen to the opinions of the majority if they encouraged immorality in the society. Socrates’ only way of survival was to withdraw his beliefs and teachings, but he was so convinced in his philosophies that he told the jury that only death could separate him with philosophy. Secondly, Socrates believed that having been under the laws of Athens for seventy years, escaping the city would be an immoral act of breaking the agreement of obeying the very laws his friend was asking him to avoid. Besides, Socrates believed that he would harm the Athenians by escaping thus his soul would also be harmed in the process making it difficult to contemplate the idea of escape from the prison (Jacobson 15).
Having analyzed the reasons for Crito’s suggestion for Socrates to escape prison and the philosopher’s arguments against the escape plan, it can be concluded that Socrates would have been wrong to avoid sentencing. Besides, it is notable that Socrates lived according to his moral virtues which were based on knowledge and wisdom thus he could not go against his very teachings (Jacquette 11). Apart from the discussed reasons, Socrates may have found no reason to escape because he had managed to teach many youths and passed his “ Socratic method of questioning” philosophy to the Athenians thus he had little to lose even if he was killed. After the judgment, Socrates warned that if the jury imagined that killing people because of their knowledge was moral, they were to prepare to handle many youths who had both knowledge and energy to confront the state. He concluded his hearing by a statement which justified his belief on the course of morality. He said that as he departed the jail condemned by judges to death, his accusers were condemned to villainy and injustice by the truth. Besides, he reiterated that he stood by his penalty and just as his accusers stood by theirs.
Conclusion
Socrates philosophy was documented by Plato, and his conversations with Glaucon, Crito, and other friends explain how knowledgeable he was. The paper has discussed the reasons why Socrates believed that one ought not to be forced into heeding popular opinions on moral matters. Besides, the discussion has explained why Socrates found the laws of the Athenian state to be fair even though he found the ruling to be unjust. Finally, the paper has explained the reasons why Socrates would have been wrong had he escaped jail as was suggested by his friend Crito.
Works Cited
Dhillon, Natasha C., and Jun Lim. Socrates: The Father of Ethics and Inquiry. The Rosen Publishing Group Inc., 2015.
Jacobson, Kirsten. "Socratic Hospitality." Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 23, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-19.
Jacquette, Dale. "Socrates on Persuasion, Truth, and Courtroom Argumentation in Plato’s Apology." Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, vol. 22, no. 4, 2003, pp. 1-12.
