The debate between the sophists and Socrates has long been a cornerstone of Western philosophy. At the heart of this debate lies a struggle to define the nature of virtue, justice, and the criteria by which we judge the quality of our moral lives. In this post, we will explore the sophists’ distinctive approach to cultural relativism and moral instruction, contrast it with the Socratic method, and consider the lasting impact these debates have had on ethical thought.
The Sophists’ Cultural Relativism and Moral Instruction
The sophists emerged in fifth-century Athens as professional teachers of rhetoric and practical wisdom. They argued that success in the public sphere—whether in the assembly or law courts—depended on one’s ability to adapt to prevailing social conventions. For the sophists, the primary measure of a man’s worth was his capacity to function effectively within his community. This involved a dual commitment: first, to mastering the evaluative vocabulary of the time (what was considered just, right, and proper), and second, to understanding how to live well within the specific cultural context of a city-state.
The sophists’ approach can be summarized in a chain of reasoning:
- The ultimate goal for a man is to function well as a human being.
- Functioning well, in the context of the polis, means being a successful citizen.
- Success in civic life is achieved by persuading and pleasing one’s audience in the public arena.
- To be persuasive, one must conform to the prevailing notions of justice and propriety, which vary from one city-state to another.
This line of thought led to the conclusion that moral values and virtues are not absolute but are rather defined by local conventions. For instance, Protagoras famously declared that “Man is the measure of all things; of the things which are, that they are, and of the things which are not, that they are not.” In other words, what appears to be true or just is entirely dependent on the perceptions and conventions of the individual or community. The sophists taught that what is considered moral in one city might be seen as immoral in another, and therefore, there is no single, universal standard of virtue.
However, this approach encountered significant challenges. If moral judgments are merely a matter of local convention, then no one can be said to judge falsely, and no teacher can claim a superior grasp of truth. Even if some individuals produce better outcomes through their rhetorical skill, the sophists’ own argument leads to a paradox: if all judgments are equally valid, then the role of a teacher, who must impart a superior understanding of what is “good,” becomes self-defeating. This issue of self-reference and internal inconsistency would later be a point of criticism by philosophers like Plato and Socrates.
The Sophists’ Natural Versus Conventional Man
To further articulate their theory, the sophists introduced a critical distinction between what they termed the “natural” man and the “conventional” man. The conventional man is someone who adheres to the established moral standards and social customs of his community. In contrast, the natural man is portrayed as someone who lives according to his own desires, unconstrained by the moral codes imposed by society. This natural man is often depicted as aggressive, self-centered, and primarily interested in power and pleasure.
This dichotomy was meant to illustrate that social conventions are necessary because they mediate between the raw, uninhibited impulses of our natural selves and the need for order in a communal life. Without such conventions, society would descend into a state of anarchy, where every individual acts purely out of self-interest—akin to the metaphor of “wolves and sheep.”
Yet, this portrayal of the natural man is problematic. Ironically, the descriptions of traits like selfishness and aggression rely on a vocabulary of morality that presupposes an already existing social framework. Words such as “selfish,” “unselfish,” “aggressive,” or “mild” have meaning only within the context of shared social expectations and norms. Thus, the concept of a “natural” man, free from the constraints of society, is internally incoherent because it depends on moral and social definitions that cannot exist outside of a communal framework.
Furthermore, the sophists’ attempt to separate the individual’s personal, premoral inclinations from the social moral order leads to a conundrum: if moral judgments are based solely on convention, then a person is left without any genuine guide for action. How, then, does one decide how to live, or determine what actions are truly right or just? The sophists provided a framework where moral concepts were only relative to a given state, leaving little room for an overarching ethical guide applicable to all of humanity.
Socrates: A Philosophical Contrarian
Enter Socrates—a figure whose method and philosophy stood in stark contrast to the sophists’ relativism. While the sophists sought to mold individuals into successful citizens by teaching them the art of persuasion, Socrates pursued a more radical inquiry into the nature of virtue itself. Rather than accepting the prevailing social conventions as the ultimate arbiters of justice, Socrates was determined to ask the hard questions: What is piety? What is courage? What is justice? His approach was not merely to conform to established usage but to critically examine and question the very definitions upon which society had built its moral judgments.
Socrates’ method, as depicted in the early Platonic dialogues, involved engaging his interlocutors in a process of questioning that exposed the inadequacies and contradictions in their moral beliefs. His goal was not to provide ready-made answers but to compel his fellow citizens to recognize their own ignorance. In his famous dictum, “I know that I know nothing,” Socrates acknowledged that true wisdom lay in the awareness of one’s own limitations.
The method of inquiry employed by Socrates—often involving inductive reasoning from examples and deductive syllogisms—was designed to demonstrate that moral concepts are not as clear-cut as they might seem. For instance, when challenging Euthyphro’s definition of piety, Socrates revealed that what was considered pious according to established customs was not sufficient to explain the essence of piety. By forcing his interlocutors into a state of perplexity and even frustration, Socrates aimed to stimulate deeper philosophical reflection and self-examination.
This method, however, was not without its critics. Some observed that Socrates’ questioning often left his interlocutors in a state of exasperation, having been driven to confront their own contradictions without receiving a clear alternative. Yet, for Socrates, the value of the dialectic process lay in its capacity to disrupt complacency and awaken a genuine pursuit of self-knowledge and moral improvement.
The Intellectualist Thesis: Virtue Is Knowledge
One of the most intriguing aspects of Socrates’ philosophy is his assertion that virtue is a form of knowledge. In other words, if a person truly understands what is good, just, or pious, then he will naturally act in accordance with that knowledge. This idea is encapsulated in the well-known Socratic statement, “No one errs willingly.” According to this view, moral wrongdoing arises not from a deficiency in character but from a failure of understanding. If an individual fully comprehended what was in his own best interest, he would invariably choose the good.
This intellectualist thesis stands in stark contrast to the sophists’ pragmatic and relativistic approach, where moral values were seen as contingent on societal norms and persuasive success rather than on objective criteria. For Socrates, acquiring virtue was akin to acquiring any other form of knowledge: it was something that could be taught, learned, and ultimately transformed into action. However, Socrates was also cautious about claiming the status of a teacher in the conventional sense. His method of eliciting self-knowledge in others suggests that he believed the potential for virtue already existed within each person—it merely needed to be drawn out through careful questioning and reflection.
Aristotle later summarized this aspect of Socratic thought by emphasizing that “when we knew what justice was, it followed that we would be just.” Yet Aristotle also noted a crucial difference in the realm of moral virtue: it was not enough merely to know what virtue was; one must also understand how it arises in order to be truly virtuous. In practical terms, this means that knowledge of moral principles must be accompanied by a capacity for action—a synergy of belief, perception, and decision-making that characterizes the truly virtuous individual.
More Affairs
The Socratic Legacy: Questioning and Self-Examination
Socrates’ insistence on probing the definitions and applications of moral concepts has had a profound and lasting influence on Western philosophy. His dialectical method, which often left interlocutors more aware of their own ignorance than of any definitive answers, was not a flaw but a deliberate strategy. By exposing the limits of conventional wisdom, Socrates encouraged his fellow citizens to strive for a deeper understanding of the moral life.
This legacy of questioning and self-examination is evident in the works of Plato, who recorded many of Socrates’ dialogues, and in the broader philosophical tradition that values critical inquiry over mere adherence to established norms. In confronting moral conservatism and the relativism of the sophists, Socrates paved the way for a more rigorous exploration of ethics—one that sought not merely to define virtue in terms of prevailing customs, but to understand its underlying nature and universal applicability.
One of the key strengths of Socrates’ approach is its insistence on objective standards for moral concepts. While the sophists argued that moral vocabulary could be arbitrarily assigned by the teacher or the ruler, Socrates maintained that there were right and wrong answers, even if they were difficult to pinpoint. His method was aimed at establishing criteria for moral excellence that went beyond local customs and individual whims, seeking instead to uncover the essential characteristics of virtue.
The Broader Implications of the Sophist-Socratic Debate
The conflict between the sophists and Socrates is not merely an academic or historical curiosity; it has significant implications for how we think about ethics, education, and the role of philosophy in public life. The sophists, with their focus on rhetoric and cultural relativism, represent a pragmatic approach to ethics—one that emphasizes success in social and political arenas. Their perspective suggests that moral truths are malleable and that effective persuasion is the key to achieving personal and political goals.
On the other hand, Socrates’ commitment to the pursuit of truth and the examination of moral concepts challenges us to consider whether there are objective standards of virtue that transcend individual cultures and historical contexts. His method of relentless questioning serves as a reminder that intellectual complacency can lead to moral stagnation, and that genuine self-knowledge is a necessary foundation for ethical action.
The debate also raises important questions about the nature of teaching and the transmission of knowledge. If moral virtues are indeed forms of knowledge, as Socrates claimed, then the process of moral education must involve more than the simple recitation of established norms. It requires a process of critical reflection, dialogue, and self-discovery—a process that challenges both teacher and student to rethink their assumptions about what it means to live a good life.
Moreover, the sophists’ emphasis on adapting to local conventions invites us to consider the role of context in ethical decision-making. While some moral principles may have universal validity, others might be deeply intertwined with the particularities of a given community or culture. This tension between universality and particularity remains a central challenge in contemporary ethical theory, one that echoes the debates of ancient Greece.
Conclusion
The dialogue between the sophists and Socrates encapsulates a fundamental tension in the history of philosophy: the struggle to reconcile the variability of human social life with the search for objective moral truths. The sophists provided an important service by highlighting the role of cultural context and the power of rhetoric in shaping moral perceptions. Their view that morality is relative to the conventions of each city-state underscored the practical challenges of living in a diverse and ever-changing world.
Socrates, by contrast, challenged this relativism by insisting on the possibility—and indeed the necessity—of discovering objective standards for virtue. His method of questioning and self-examination, though sometimes frustrating to his interlocutors, was aimed at fostering a deeper understanding of the moral life and encouraging individuals to recognize the limits of their own knowledge.
In the end, both perspectives contribute to our understanding of ethics. The sophists remind us that social context matters and that effective communication and persuasion are indispensable skills for any citizen. Socrates, on the other hand, urges us to look beyond superficial conventions and to seek the underlying principles that govern moral action. This dual legacy continues to influence modern debates in moral philosophy, education, and politics.
