Socrates vs Sophists: Moral Intellectualism and Society

The philosophy of Socrates is a therapy to relieve people from ignorance and guide them toward the truth. Even if a definitive answer is not reached, any response is novel because it becomes a new question. Its ultimate purpose is to inspire an intense and constant search for truth.

Socratic Moral Intellectualism as an Ethical Theory

Socrates believed in virtue as a universal and objective reality that can be known and accepted by any human being through reason, helping to grow the soul and create good citizens. The wise seek virtue in the exercise of power to achieve happiness. Under this view, the category of knowledge equates to true answers to ethical and moral issues. Finding the truth is a collective task.

According to Socratic thought:

• It is both possible and necessary to know virtue and to teach it.
• Only by knowing what justice is can one act fairly.
• Knowledge itself is the knowledge of virtue.

His theory is known as moral intellectualism, which posits that he who does evil does so because he is morally ignorant, being unaware that he is doing evil. Since reason is the path to justice and happiness, acting reasonably is acting fairly. According to intellectualism, human actions will be fair if you do what is just, which is only possible if you truly know what justice is.

Ethics and Politics: Socrates vs. Sophists

According to Socrates, ethics must regulate politics, since moral virtue is the highest good (both individual and social) because it calms individual and social conflicts. Social conscience takes precedence over external factors. A citizen's first duty is to obey the laws, which Socrates never considered inherently unfair; only the envy and ignorance of those who condemn unfairly interpret them. Laws express the essence of the universal individual and the state. Man is indebted to society because without it, there would be nothing.

However, the Sophists argue that societies are governed by positive law (nomos in Greek) and that the basis of these laws lies entirely in human will rather than natural law.

Individual and Society: Socrates vs. Sophists

The Sophists held a relativist position, both regarding the possibility of knowledge and the forms of social and political organization of men. According to Protagoras, the determinant of social law is not the individual or nature, but all men who live in that society. This explains how the nature of law can be modified. The Sophists understood that society must be utilized by individuals for their own advantage.

In contrast, for Socrates, society is the natural state of human beings. Man is not self-sufficient, neither in the production of goods for survival nor in moral and spiritual development. Laws express the essence of the universal individual and society. Man cannot be understood on the margins of society; therefore, society has priority over the individual.