The Republic by Plato - 1 - What Is Morality?
Book One
Quote
"My claim is that morality is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger party.... Well, why aren't you applauding?"
Notes
Socrates meets with some friends after a festival in Athens. One of the older men in the group, Cephalus, tells Socrates he wishes he would come visit more. Because of his old age and declining interest in physical activity, he has "an increasing desire for and enjoyment of conversation."
Socrates picks up on the topic of old age and asks Cephalus how he finds it. Cephalus describes how many people complain about old age since they can't do a lot of the things they used to, including having sex. But he feels this isn't such a bad thing: "When the desires lose their intensity and ease up, then what happens is ... freedom from a great many demented masters." Old age isn't so bad as long as you have good character.
Socrates suggests that maybe the real reason Cephalus is still happy in old age is because he has lots of money. And Cephalus replies that in fact money helps to support a moral life, since it keeps you from having to cheat or steal in order to live. And being moral helps you to face death with more peace and calm, being satisfied that you lived well.
Then the question is raised, what does it mean to be moral, or to do right? Maybe it means being truthful, and giving back to someone what they're owed. Doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies. But this definition quickly breaks down. What if someone only appears good? Also, doesn't doing harm to someone only make them worse? Is that moral?
Here Thrasymachus enters the scene and says that morality is whatever the people in power says it is. Governments define morality in a way that suits their own interests, and punish anyone who deviates from that.
Socrates has questions about this definition. He looks at other branches of expertise. There is the branch of statecraft, horsemanship, medicine, etc. None of these get their expertise and authority by looking out for their own interest: "Medicine does not consider the welfare of medicine, but the welfare of the body (ie the patient) ... And horsemanship considers the welfare of horses, not of horsemanship. In short, no branch of expertise considers its own advantage ... it considers the welfare of its area of expertise." Governments, therefore, can't just rule out of their own self-interest because governing is about managing for the welfare of the state.
Thrasymachus isn't satisfied with this. He maintains that morality is only what is to the advantage of the people in power. And in fact, "a moral person is worse off than an immoral person." Because an immoral person can lie, cheat, and steal to get his way. Whereas a moral person is limited and will get taken advantage of.
Socrates returns saying it's hard to gain power by being immoral. Say a group of criminals want to do crime and make money. Sure they can be immoral to the people they're stealing from, but if they are immoral to each other then they won't be able to work together.
He also argues that people are not motivated to rule based on money and prestige, since that would be seen as insulting to them: "You see, if they overtly require money for being in charge, they'll be called hired hands, and if they covertly make money for themselves out of the possession of power, they'll be called thieves; and they don't want either of these alternatives."
He says the only way to get someone to take power is through the threat of punishment: "The ultimate punishment for being unwilling to assume authority oneself is to be governed by a worse person, and it is fear of this happening, I think, which prompts good men to assume power occasionally."
Socrates feels satisfied that he's refuted Thrasymachus's claim about morality, but the question about morality's definition is still left unanswered.
Key Takeaways
Do you agree with Socrates/Plato's argument against Thrasymachus? Corruption and self-interest seems so rampant in politics, it's hard to take their idealistic view too seriously. It seems possible that someone can be skilled at governing and still manipulate things to their own advantage and personal gain. The argument seems to be that in order to do something well requires a kind of morality. But I think it's possible to be both effective and immoral at the same time.
Why does Plato write his philosophy using this form? Reading The Republic feels like a strange combination of a novel, a play, a podcast, and a non-fiction book. Are these dialogues made up? Are they based on real conversations? Is this really Socrates' point of view, or is he only a character Plato is speaking through? What an interesting and unique way to write philosophy. I wonder why no one today writes books like this.
Strangeness aside, this is also the famous Socratic method in action. Socrates is extremely skilled at asking questions and was very popular for his ability to do so. Everyone seemed to love having him around, and they're happy to host him, feed him, and support him financially to enjoy the pleasure of his company.