“Don’t most people today believe that morality is not objective, that it is purely a matter of its subjective opinion? Was Socrates and Plato mistaken in trying to refute this position?”
Many people today would venture to say that morality is based on subjective opinions rather than objective standards. This attitude has become extremely prominent today in a world that screams, “If you think that it is right, then it must be right.” Socrates and Plato argued that morality should be based on certain guidelines and standards in order to live in a society that is in harmony and at peace. Using the historical evidence of societies throughout the ages that had the attitude of a subjective morality, it is certain to become increasingly clear that Socrates and Plato were not mistaken in arguing that morality should in fact be based on objective standards.
In order to understand Platonic and Socratic arguments for the importance of a morality based on objectivity, it is essential to have knowledge of their reasoning. Both Plato and Socrates were dualists, and they believed fervently in the condition of the soul. They also argued that the highest part of the soul is reason. In order to obtain correct reasoning, the soul must first discover truth. In other words, universal truth went hand in hand with reason. Therefore, when the soul reached the understanding of truth and knowledge the result would ultimately be universal. They went even further in asserting that truth and knowledge in its purest form had the ability to transcend all cultures and societies. If everyone recognized the highest form of truth, they would discover identical standards of reality. The universality of objective reasoning would then lead to harmonious, peaceful, and successful societies.
On the contrary, several societies throughout history have fallen (both literally and figuratively) into patterns of subjective morality. It is therefore equally important to uncover the reasoning for the basis of these societies in order to defend the argument of Socrates and Plato. Most societies were formed on the basis of standardized principles and laws. The natural tendency for the universe is to fall into chaos and out of order. As this phenomenon continued, the members of society eventually began to undermine the established principles on which their cultures were founded. According to these patterns throughout history, these societies almost without exception fell into ruin and ultimate destruction.
The decline of ancient Athens is just one example of the disastrous effects of psychological hedonism and greed. Following the Peloponnesian War, the foundation of Hellenistic society fell into ruin. The deterioration of political society came about as a result of conflicts between the oligarchs and the democrats. Each group had differing ideas as to how their society should be effectively managed. The Oligarchs wanted to retain power and wealth by denying political rights to men of lower classes. The democrats wanted to preserve the equality among all members of society. Heraclites may have had difficulty in explaining his theory of the beneficial effects of the tensions opposites as these political tensions led to the ultimate downfall of Athens. As Thucydides so correctly expressed,
"Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils...As the result of these revolutions, there was a general deterioration of character throughout the Greek World." (Perry, 68).
The Greek city-states never recovered from their lack of virtuousness, and Athens lost its opportunity to unify the Greek World.
The research and empirical evidence of fallen nations due to the lack of morality greatly supports the rational arguments of Socrates and Plato. Through the examination of societies throughout history, it is clear that morality should be universal based on the examination of the soul and the discovery of ultimate truth.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
"The natural tendency for the universe is to fall into chaos and out of order" To me that is a strong argment the existence of a creator. A world that is so prone to chaos, yet in so much order with great complexity. From the solar system to the nucleus of an atom.
Actually that is a strong arguement for the existence of the Law of Enthropy.
You are sure right. It is a great way to make a case for the creator! YAH!
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
It amazes me at how I repeatedly have to make this point when it comes to morals. Morals are founded on two basic principles, 1)do all you have agreed to do, and 2) do not encroach on other people or their property. Those are the two fundamental law of the universe when you study natural law. Laws that go farther back than any holy books, religions, philosophies, cultures, etc.
No sir. It is immoral to see your neighbors house on fire while everyone's asleep and you're on your way to a party and ignore it. That has nothing to do with "1)do all you have agreed to do, and 2) do not encroach on other people or their property. " Your "fundamental" whatever. Morals are wired into humans BY GOD.
That is an opinion. One which I happen to disagree with. Some people believe it's morally wrong to eat beef, or pork. That's not wired by God - it's something that is taught to you as a child. Some people believe it's wrong to be gay, but to others there is nothing improper about it. Also learned.
Other things, such as lying or stealing, are innate and obvious because of their direct detrimental effects on society and therefore oneself via cause and effect. You kill your mother, your brothers and sisters will probably get pretty mad and there's going to be consequences.
Think about this logically, not emotionally. Religion has nothing to do with morality, except as a learning environment. Not all people have the same morals - therefore they are not wired into humans by God or God(s).
The example i gave above; tell me country or a tribe or a group there it goes against their morality.
You are trying to make a point to prove Christianity; but it's taken out of context. What does your example have to do with religion?
The situation is learned; the social and emotional repercussions of one's act. We learn it's wrong because of how we feel, and how others react to harm. Who is to say that emotions are because of God? Clearly they are a human trait, but who is to say that emotions are divine? We know they can be created by chemicals in the brain. Seratonin causes happiness, for example.
However, some people lack the ability to understand why one should not commit arson; why murder is wrong. Therefore, God(s) did not create morality within everyone, and it is not hardwired within us.
This has nothing to do with Christianity. I'm out to show you under normal circumstances humans are built with morality. Check this out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7103804.stm
make sure you watch the video.
Those comments are far from conclusive to me. Big surprise - babies learn. That's what they are supposed to do.
Dang!!! those idiots..lol
But do you really believe 6 month old babies can learn something as complex as morals?
I believe that babies are very capable - they learn much faster than adults, don't they? Children learn languages as much as ten times as fast. They absorb and process information at phenomenal speeds. It's fascinating how children's brains work, which is why we must appreciate them and teach them carefully while they are still capable of learning the difference between right and wrong.
But think about this. Morals are not heard; they are simply acted and at that age babies can't even understand what is being said while the actions are taking place.Think about this also babies are given a lot of leeway when it comes to morals. Now, my final argument, smiling is one of the most universal and most moral things you can do. Be it meeting somebody at the bus stop or meeting the President of the United States, yet nobody thought any of us to smile. even as early as maybe 3 months(i'm not sure) babies would have started smiling. Where did that come from.
Of course a smile is learned. Your parents smile at you, kiss you and use pleasant tones of voice from the day you are born - you associate smiles with good things! A smile is one of the easiest things for a baby to learn.
: )
Children can undertand before they can speak. That's why babies can learn sign language before they can talk and have relatively normal conversations. Therefore they DO understand things without hearing or speaking about them.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
I know close to nothing about babies so i won't even argue
How do you determine the difference between universal morals and those which are culturally learned?
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
There is no difference. If they are universal, then they can be learned by a culture. Is it really that hard to grasp of a concept?
No, that is not hard to grasp. But not all cultures share the same moral code.
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
No they don't...but most of those cultures moral codes follow those two fundamental laws.
Ok, I can agree with that.
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
Smiles are worth a thousand words, but why are they the universal language in all cultures? Could it be because they are wired into all humanity?
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
Smiles don't necessarily mean that the person smiling is happy. Sometimes it's a threat...or it means nothing.
Good God, tell me the law you've studied? Political law I presume, if you knew anything about British Common Law, you'd know what I meant by what I said. Stop trying to justify Christianity, these laws are called Natural Laws...if you break down the 10 commandments you get these 2...that's all you needed, it just shows that humans perverted God and made extra commandments when only 2 were needed. Since you follow the 10 Commandments, then they don't cover this either, so you are not justified to say if this is immoral or not because if this is immoral, then you entire belief system is immoral.