New Thread: Rehashing Socrates

[von_Rivers]

Socrates is famous for a bunch of views, and right here I’m just rehashing two of them—which apparently stirred up some controversy. Here’s what Socrates/Plato thinks:

1. All evil is due to ignorance.
2. Nobody willingly does wrong.

These are positions Socrates argues for and defends in some of his dialogues. Here’s the post where I took myself to be giving voice to those views (which I agree with):

@von Rivers

Bruah(s),

The notion that you need to be coerced by threat to act as you ought to act is ridiculous. —Acting as you ought to act just is what’s good for you. Nobody willingly acts in a way contrary to how they ought to act----it’s only ever done out of ignorance about how they actually ought to act. (Morality is just the topic of figuring out how you ought to act).

Some people drop the ball about morality (how they ought to act)… because some people have a misunderstood sense of what is in their self-interest, or else a misunderstood sense of ‘self’. Obviously, acting morally will always be in your self-interest, laws or not, punishment or not, public or not. —Perhaps not always if you mistakenly think of your ‘self’ as the narrow atomistic egoist who does well only when someone else does poorly—and thus has to hustle bling to getz paid. But thinking of your ‘self’ like that is likely to make you isolated, cut off from real relationships, paranoid of others, greedy… kind of like Golum, with his prreeeccciouuusssss.

I thought it was about to derail the thread that it was in, so I transplanted it here. Here’s fuse’s questions:

@fuse

1. If ignorant about how they ought to act and incapable of understanding what’s good for them, it’s bound to be the case that at least some people would be motivated by nothing less than coercion to do what’s right.

I agree. I’d only point out that they’re not being motivated by what is right----they are being motivated by avoiding punishment.

@fuse

2. Acting how you ought to act just is what’s good for you. …such that if something is good for you then you ought to pursue it? If acting as you ought to act just is what’s good for you is meant as a statement of material equivalence (a biconditional),

Yes, young jedi; that is exactly what I’m saying. But no, the good is not whatever you happen to decide, because you can be mistaken about what it is. If I like drinking paint, I’m wrong that it’s good for me or others. And yes, clearly I’m not a subjectivist.

@fuse

3. Suppose you are powerful enough to manipulate people, whole masses even, without regard for their well-being, and you do this because you find you can sustain such a system and reap benefits. Do you accept this as a moral possibility? (Why not?)

No, of course not. First of all, what do you think the benefits are of manipulating and harming whole masses of people? Financial gain? Is that it?

When you manipulate and treat people poorly, you isolate yourself, cut yourself off from real relationships with other people, make yourself paranoid about other people and revenge, preoccupy your life with just maintaining your position, and lose the praise of others, and history. Ultimately, all of these things are worth more than money. Don’t you think? —And all of these things are the kind of things that contribute to a person’s sense of self-worth. What’s likely to happen, I think, is that the person will be pillaging others to maintain the status of someone he’ll learn to lose respect for (i.e., himself).

In a nutshell, Socrates thinks what he does (#1 and #2) because he thinks the psyche is more central to the person than his body and his material wealth. And ultimately, I think he’s right.

[phyllo]

Harry Lime: Don’t be so gloomy. After all it’s not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.

The Third Man

[von_Rivers]

@phyllo

Harry Lime: Don’t be so gloomy. After all it’s not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.

Are you saying that no great inventions/art/discoveries come in times of peace? (Is that really a claim you want to defend?) Or are you saying that we should start wars because you find all the world’s art dull and repetitive?

Why isn’t this just a claim about Switzerland? …What has Switzerland ever produced in terms of great art? A few, that’s it. If a country produces nothing for 500 years, it says more about the country and not the various Ages and Eras that it has passed through.

Diss on Switzerland, I say.

[von_Rivers]

@phyllo

Yeah, sure, morality is determined by liver function.

Laaazzzyyy…

Well-being = physical health + psychological health + financial health

That’s a start. And yes, having a liver is one component of one of those components. Should you drink paint? No. Why not? Isn’t it all just your opinion, man? Plug the likely consequences into the formula, brethren, and see whether the result is likely to decrease, or increase.

Yom sayin.

Eaaaaasssssyyyyy like Sunday morning. I would have thought you’d be onboard with this.

Give us a urine sample and we will figure out if you are living the good life.

Exactly right.

Exactly fucking right. You wear many of your life choices on your body, brethren----whether you want to, or not.

[Ben_JS]

I completely agree on the first count that evil is a product of ignorance. However, right and wrong are relative to an objective. So whilst I don’t believe anyone intentionally does wrong by their own objective, they might knowingly do wrong in another’s eyes. This is simply a matter of priority.

[von_Rivers]

@Joe Schmoe

I completely agree on the first count that evil is a product of ignorance. However, right and wrong are relative to an objective. So whilst I don’t believe anyone intentionally does wrong by their own objective, they might knowingly do wrong in another’s eyes. This is simply a matter of priority.

There are right and wrong objectives.

[Mr_Reasonable]

Von do you mean that there are forms for right and wrong? And that they are objective?

If that’s the case then inasmuch as we define them, sure. But I don’t think you’re going to find a definition that doesn’t fall into the problem of definition. So you still run into the problem of having to move from general to specific without contradiction. Socrates had a lot of problems with this if you recall.

You ever think that the lesson to be learned from Socrates is that the only thing moral language is good for is exposing the problems of morality? He was on and on about piety and all that, but that’s not the philosophy part. The philosophy part is where he pointed out the problem of never ending contradictions in certain patterns of language.

They named a method after that fool and they use it to trick the biggest smart asses they can find in law schools across America.

It’s for real g.

[von_Rivers]

@Smears

You ever think that the lesson to be learned from Socrates is that the only thing moral language is good for is exposing the problems of morality?

Not according to Socrates, bruah. You want some quotes, bruah? Socrates explicitly claims to know a lot of things about morality.

He was on and on about piety and all that, but that’s not the philosophy part.

Yes, it is. It’s called “epistemology”, for one. It also falls into philosophy of religion as well, and ethics… --If you’re talking about Euthyphro, (the main dialogue on piety).

The philosophy part is where he pointed out the problem of never ending contradictions in certain patterns of language.

Never ending contradictions? What? Where?

Bruah, I am a river.

[Uccisore]

von Rivers,

Augustine, when talking about sin, talks about himself as a boy running with his pack of friends, and how they would do something they knew was wrong (stealing fruit from a farmer's fruit tree, I think was his example).  Not only did they know it was wrong, says he, but the FACT that it was wrong, forbidden, added an exhiliration to the act that made it more appealing.  The wallowed in immorality knowingly, like a pig in mmud.  So according to him, a person who's head isn't in the right place can not knowingly do what is wrong, but the knowledge can fill them with a perverse glee even in so-knowing.   This seems consistent with my personal experiences. How do we work this in to what Socrates says?

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

‘evil’ can be categorized, but the categorization itself isn’t a thing, or real. The word ‘evil’ is like a stamp that people stick on things. They stick it there based on personal desires and cognitive processes, or also due to social desires or conditioning. None of this is a monism. Both ignorant and non-ignorant things can be stamped as either evil or good. Plato tries to fuze truth and good, and therefor the ignorant = untruth, unknowledge, and therefor is bad.

[Ben_JS]

@von Rivers

There are right and wrong objectives.

I argue right and wrong are not independent of an objective. The objective is the prerequisite for right and wrong to be discerned. Without the objective, the words are completely empty.

You say, ‘there’s right and wrong objectives’. An objective can only be right or wrong, if it’s means to attain a higher objective. Therefore, at the highest (broadest) level, there’s an objective without right and wrong in the equation.

[fuse]

@von Rivers

@fuse

1. If ignorant about how they ought to act and incapable of understanding what’s good for them, it’s bound to be the case that at least some people would be motivated by nothing less than coercion to do what’s right.

I agree. I’d only point out that they’re not being motivated by what is right----they are being motivated by avoiding punishment.

Yes. This means it’s not ridiculous to think that some people would need to be coerced by threat to act how they ought to act (assuming morality is objective).

@von Rivers

@fuse

2. Acting how you ought to act just is what’s good for you. …such that if something is good for you then you ought to pursue it? If acting as you ought to act just is what’s good for you is meant as a statement of material equivalence (a biconditional),

Yes, young jedi; that is exactly what I’m saying. But no, the good is not whatever you happen to decide, because you can be mistaken about what it is. If I like drinking paint, I’m wrong that it’s good for me or others. And yes, clearly I’m not a subjectivist.

I forgot you believe in objective morality. –If I like drinking paint, I’m wrong that it’s good for me or others. …only on condition that good means something along the lines of “conducive to higher functioning and the preservation of a certain quality of life.” What good is- depends on subjective considerations. Of course I don’t care to justify drinking paint, but it’s extremely clear to me that morality has a significant subjective aspect that you don’t seem to acknowledge. Objective facts about preserving the strength and function of one’s body, or finding social and psychological harmony, are significant because they are relevant to human values and desires, two defining elements of our subjectivity. The facts alone do not give rise to morality; our attitudes toward them are critical. How can you talk about what is good for a subject and ignore subjective interest?

@von Rivers

@fuse

3. Suppose you are powerful enough to manipulate people, whole masses even, without regard for their well-being, and you do this because you find you can sustain such a system and reap benefits. Do you accept this as a moral possibility? (Why not?)

No, of course not. First of all, what do you think the benefits are of manipulating and harming whole masses of people? Financial gain? Is that it?

That is one possibility, material gain, not that one so powerful would need it. Perhaps thrill is another possibility. Perhaps such a person mobilizes people for his own creative ends and projects. Anyone feeling slightly imaginative can think of plenty of possible benefits. Explain why you join manipulation with the concept of harm, as if the former necessarily includes the latter?

@von Rivers

When you manipulate and treat people poorly, you isolate yourself, cut yourself off from real relationships with other people, make yourself paranoid about other people and revenge, preoccupy your life with just maintaining your position, and lose the praise of others, and history. Ultimately, all of these things are worth more than money. Don’t you think? —And all of these things are the kind of things that contribute to a person’s sense of self-worth. What’s likely to happen, I think, is that the person will be pillaging others to maintain the status of someone he’ll learn to lose respect for (i.e., himself).

The scenario involves someone who is incredibly powerful. Such people exist. You’re also making manipulation out to be some cheap and simplistic trade that can only bring isolation, misery, and failure. I don’t see your generalizations having much value. Manipulation comes in different varieties. They are not all isolating, they do not all result in paranoia, they do not always consist of “poor treatment.”

The purpose of the scenario of course is for you to imagine the possibility that someone could live well and in good health who does not necessarily play nice (or fairly) with others.

[von_Rivers]

@fuse

This means it’s not ridiculous to think that some people would need to be coerced by threat to act how they ought to act (assuming morality is objective).

It is ridiculous to think that some people need to be coerced to act in what they themself think is their best interests. I take that to be a different way of stating Socrates’ point: “nobody willingly does wrong”. Obviously, “how you ought to act” is equivalent to “your best interests” (or really, “acting according to your best interests”). That’s true so long as you don’t identify your best interests with a narrow, atomistic, egoistic concept, made out in terms of just your financial well-being—like many do.

@fuse

What good is- depends on subjective considerations. Of course I don’t care to justify drinking paint, but it’s extremely clear to me that morality has a significant subjective aspect that you don’t seem to acknowledge.

What good is depends on the kind of subject that you are—the kind of creature that you are—but that only makes it subject-dependent, not subjective. For example, physical health is subject-dependent. (There’s no such thing as physical health without a physiological creature, and whatever health is, it’ll depend on what kind of creature it is). But if something is subjective, then it’s just a matter of your opinion. Clearly, what’s good for you is not simply a matter of your opinion. That’s true about your physical health. That’s true about your psychological health. That’s true about your financial well-being. That’s true in terms of relationships. That’s true in terms of education. In other words, it’s true in every aspect of what contributes to your well-being.

I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the ultimate goals/ends of people are for them to choose, and they are not written in the stars, or molecules, or commandments. You think that this is where subjectivity enters. The things you do to further any given goal can be objective, but the goal itself is subjective—at the whim of any person. Here’s something for you to think about…

Suppose someone comes along who says, “My goal is to make my life as miserable as possible”. That’s the end point of his morality. Is it coherent? I don’t see how it is coherent, just by the meaning of the term ‘miserable’----anymore than if their goal was, “My goal is to fail at my goals”.

Suppose someone comes along who says, “My goal is to kill as many people as possible, and everyone I care about”. That’s their end point of morality. Coherent? No, I think not----simply because you know, (by the kind of creature that they are), that that will make them miserable. A goal that makes you miserable is an incoherent goal.

What you are implying, when you say that morality is subjective, is that nobody has to answer to anyone about why they act as they do----because how they ought to act is only beholden to their opinion. But there are all kinds of goals someone can choose, like above, that you don’t want to say that about, and that are self-contradictory when you do. What’s up?

@fuse

Explain why you join manipulation with the concept of harm, as if the former necessarily includes the latter?

I didn’t, you did. You said the person manipulated them “without regard for their well-being”. I tend to think something that undercuts a person’s autonomy is going to cause problems… but that’s a tangent.

@fuse

Manipulation comes in different varieties. They are not all isolating, they do not all result in paranoia, they do not always consist of "poor treatment.

None of this is what your example was talking about. You were talking about an example where one person manipulates others out of what’s good for them, and takes it for himself. Now you’re trying to come up with a “benevolent dictator” example. Those two are separate examples, and you should decide which one you want to talk about, and stop wavering back and forth.

@fuse

The purpose of the scenario of course is for you to imagine the possibility that someone could live well and in good health who does not necessarily play nice (or fairly) with others.

Ignore “fairness” for now. I can think of tons of examples where not being nice is good for you and other people. Playing hockey, for one. In the economy, perhaps. Teaching a child, sometimes. Etc. What’s your point?

[von_Rivers]

@Uccisore

von Rivers,

Augustine, when talking about sin, talks about himself as a boy running with his pack of friends, and how they would do something they knew was wrong (stealing fruit from a farmer's fruit tree, I think was his example).  Not only did they know it was wrong, says he, but the FACT that it was wrong, forbidden, added an exhiliration to the act that made it more appealing.  The wallowed in immorality knowingly, like a pig in mmud.  So according to him, a person who's head isn't in the right place can not knowingly do what is wrong, but the knowledge can fill them with a perverse glee even in so-knowing.   This seems consistent with my personal experiences. How do we work this in to what Socrates says?

Yes, it’s a common experience. Here’s how I’d explain it away… I think that (partly) because of religion and the Church the concept of what’s-good-for-you became divided between into two different things: (1) what’s good for you in this world, and (2) what’s good for you in the world to come (God’s world, or whatever). Stealing a cookie from the jar may be good for you in this life, if you’re not caught. But if you have to suffer hell-fire because of it, then clearly it’ll be bad for you in the next world. In that sense, I think you can really enjoy something that’s bad for you in (2), but only because it’s good for you in (1). That’d explain Augustine’s experience.

Frankly, I’m not working with that split, at all.

Anyways, I just don’t think Augustine would have willingly stolen the fruit if the full consequences of his actions (as he believed them to be) were vivid to him at the time. If every suffering of an eternity in hell-fire was vivid in Augustine’s mind, and with equal certainty he knew he’d experience them, would Augustine have stolen the fruit? What do you believe? Personally, I think he probably had a memory lapse, or thought it wasn’t really a big enough deal to merit anything bad, or that he’d be forgiven, or whatever. Seems to me that him saying “it was wrong” was really just lip-service. Not sure if I’m doing him justice.

[Ben_JS]

@Uccisore

Augustine, when talking about sin, talks about himself as a boy running with his pack of friends, and how they would do something they knew was wrong (stealing fruit from a farmer’s fruit tree, I think was his example). Not only did they know it was wrong, says he, but the FACT that it was wrong, forbidden, added an exhiliration to the act that made it more appealing. The wallowed in immorality knowingly, like a pig in mmud. So according to him, a person who’s head isn’t in the right place can not knowingly do what is wrong, but the knowledge can fill them with a perverse glee even in so-knowing. This seems consistent with my personal experiences. How do we work this in to what Socrates says?

I would trace this back to a product of ignorance. There’s many influences that affect the youth. The boy might not realize how deeply his actions are influenced by peer pressure and rebellion, and may post rationalize that he willingly did actions because that’s preferable than thinking he was vulnerable enough to be easily confused into making a mistake.

It makes sense from an evolutionary point of view for males to feel glee during an adrenaline rush. In our past, we hunted for food. The joy of adrenaline encouraged us to support ourselves and community. It’s not a sign of guilt when one’s body reacts to adrenaline. The joy doesn’t translate to a full comprehension of the situation.

It’s common place for an adult who had a rough youth, to reflect back on past mistakes, and concede how little control they truly had on the events they partook in. In their youth they’d say, ‘This is who I am. I don’t care how it affects others. I enjoy it’. However, in their later years, they’ll say how wrong and regrettable their actions were, and if they had their time again, how they’d have done it completely differently.

This shows that whilst at the time of an act, one may think they understand, but in reality, they could still lack a huge amount of comprehension regarding the impact of their actions on themselves, and on others.

[phyllo]

Well-being = physical health + psychological health + financial health

That’s a start. And yes, having a liver is one component of one of those components. Should you drink paint? No. Why not? Isn’t it all just your opinion, man? Plug the likely consequences into the formula, brethren, and see whether the result is likely to decrease, or increase.

Drinking paint is not a moral question, unless you expect some impact on members of your family or society.

Let’s look at a typical moral problem:
Poor man steals from rich man.
The poor man’s health improves because he afford to eat better food.
The poor man feels better because he now has power and influence.
The poor man’s financial health obviously improves.

The rich man’s health is not damaged.
The rich man is upset by the loss of money but it’s not a significant impact.
The rich man loses a small portion of his wealth but still has a lot left.

Well-being of the poor man has increased more than the well-being of the rich man has decreased.

Evaluation: It’s morally correct for the poor to steal from the rich.

[von_Rivers]

@phyllo

Drinking paint is not a moral question, unless you expect some impact on members of your family or society.

Moral issues are not just issues about how you treat other people; they are also issues about how you treat yourself.

Let’s look at a typical moral problem:
Poor man steals from rich man.
The poor man’s health improves because he afford to eat better food.
The poor man feels better because he now has power and influence.
The poor man’s financial health obviously improves.

The rich man’s health is not damaged.
The rich man is upset by the loss of money but it’s not a significant impact.
The rich man loses a small portion of his wealth but still has a lot left.

Well-being of the poor man has increased more than the well-being of the rich man has decreased.

Evaluation: It’s morally correct for the poor to steal from the rich.

Yup. If that was all there is to the details, then yes… there’s nothing wrong with stealing. Add some more relevant context and facts, and that conclusion might change.

[phyllo]

And Socrates would agree? After all, the poor man has not acted out of ignorance and he has done no wrong.

Why do we have laws and moral standards which protect the property of wealthy people?

Add some more relevant context and facts, and that conclusion might change.

Such as?

[von_Rivers]

@phyllo

And Socrates would agree? After all, the poor man has not acted out of ignorance and he has done no wrong.

Doesn’t violate the claim that no one willingly does wrong, if it is not wrong, does it?

That said, Socrates would probably not agree that stealing money is ever right, because money (and worldly possessions and your body) are just less important than the best possible state of your psyche. He’d think that stealing is going to harm the person stealing, more than the person stolen from.

But that wasn’t part of what you said…

Why do we have laws and moral standards which protect the property of wealthy people?

Ohh, I get it… now you want to insert more context and facts and change the example. Well, go for it, if you want…

[Mr_Reasonable]

The most important thing attributable to socrates is the idea that the one asking the questions always wins. Deduction allows for greater certainty than induction. No one can induct indefinitely without falling into verbal contradiction. The shit really wasn’t about morals at all Von.