Socratic Ideology

Socrates once famously exclaimed that "the unexamined life is not worth living". He said this during his execution trial where he was sentenced to death. He was guilty of "corrupting the youth" and not believing in the Gods that Athens believed in.

He gave his life to stand for what he thought was right. He never once imposed his views on others, and he lived a life of honest pursuit of knowledge. He is arguably the father of philosophy (all philosophers before him are known as the "Pre-Socratics" for a reason), and one of the greatest thinkers to ever live. The Socratic method is used in classrooms around the world, as well as in any logical pursuit of truth. Finally, his Socratic Irony is universally praised.

When I say Socratic Irony, I mainly mean his famous statement "All I know is that I know nothing". A friend of Socrates once went to visit the Delphic Oracle, who told him that Socrates was the wisest man in the world. Socrates did not believe this statement, so he went around trying to find someone smarter than he. What he discovered is that everyone he encountered seemed to either not be as smart, or instead think that they knew everything. Socrates never claimed to know things that he didn't - he was extremely unhindered by his ignorance. He sincerely wanted to understand things around him, and always engaged in dialogues with Athenian citizens about concepts and ideas that he did not know or understand in an attempt to broaden his knowledge. One of his conversations I think is worth considerable thought:

As Socrates walks up the steps of the court house to go to his first (and last) trial, he runs into an old friend named Euthyphro. Euthyphro is suing his father due to a death of one of their slaves. What caused Euthyphro to sue his father is unimportant; the only important thing to know is that his father accidentally killed a slave due to negligence. Euthyphro wants to sue his own father because he knows that his father committed an immoral act. Socrates is confused, and asks how Euthyphro could possibly be SO certain that his father has done wrong. Euthyphro claims to know everything that is pious and everything that is not.

Socrates simply cannot let this opportunity go by him. So he inquires - how does Euthyphro know what is moral (pious) and what is immoral? This is where it gets very interesting. Through a back and forth discussion, Euthyphro (with help from Socrates) comes to the conclusion that what is moral is what all the gods love.

Socrates asks this - "Is an act (x) moral because God loves it, -OR- does God love an act (x) because it is moral?"

Euthyphro claims that an act is moral because God loves it. This is commonly known as Divine Command Theory. These are the problems that arise if you prescribe to such an idea about morality:

First, it means that God's commands are completely arbitrary. For example, child abuse is wrong not because of anything other than God's will. If God's commands are arbitrary, then what is now morally right could have just as easily been morally wrong. Child abuse could be considered morally right in such a world, since the only thing that makes an act moral or immoral is God's say (which is grounded in nothing other than what he/she/it wants).

Second, given this doctrine the "goodness" of God fails to exist. This is because "good" is whatever God wants to be - so really God is not "all good", He just does whatever he wants and that is considered good.

Those two arguments above are reasons to reject divine command theory. The only problem that one might see with believing that an act is moral for certain ungodly reasons, and therefore God likes said act, is because then you have to agree that right and wrong (and morality) function independently of God. (and also the fact that Divine Command Theory is false). Those two problems can be HUGE for a religious person, but for a rational person I don't think it is that hard to accept.

For one thing, if we go back to the child abuse example, I would say that child abuse is wrong because it inflicts unnecessary harm on an innocent child, it leaves long lasting developmental and psychological negative affects on the child, it goes against human nature, and it is base and cruel. These seem to be reasons as to why child abuse would be considered immoral, and therefore also reasons as to why God would not like child abuse.

If, however, Divine Command Theory were right, then none of those would matter. Child abuse would be wrong because God says so.

It seems as though morality now exists independent of any type of God. Sure, what God says is moral and immoral might coincide with human logic of what is moral and immoral, but that does not mean that those acts are moral/immoral BECAUSE God proclaims they are. (I would also contend that these two things really do not coincide - the ban on premarital sex, keeping the sabbath a holy day, not using the Lord's name in vain, only believing in one God, ban on abortion, etc all lack human logic and instead rely solely on the "God says so" Ideology. We are talking about christian moral codes.)

Such an ideology is extremely uncomfortable, and means that we could believe in a moral code that is completely arbitrary and we could believe in the goodness of God when in reality God (according to such a definition or good/bad) just does what He wants.

Instead, morality seems logically and rationally to exist independent of any religious creed. What a great realization?