|
|
Using the Socratic Method to Define
Morals in a Complex Modern Society
robert w. perrine
Over two thousand years have passed since the execution of Plato and modern philosophers continue to debate the legitimacy of using the Socratic Method to define moral and ethical problems in today’s modern society. The technique called the Socratic Method of Question and Answer is still the best way to define ambiguous moral notions such as justice, piety and goodness. In order to understand this, definitions of the Socratic Method, purposes and application should be fully comprehended and explanations clear and concise. Modern philosophy has many distinct kinds of definitions (Kemerling) and five of those definitions will be explored in order to further explain why the Socratic Method brings out the clearest form of expressing complicated ideals.
Definitions
In order to investigate the thesis question, one must first look for a tangible meaning of the word definition. Socrates was concerned with the essential definitions of words. By essential definition, Socrates was most concerned with the definition that clearly states what makes a thing what it is and distinguishes it from all other things. By defining a housecat in the clearest possible terms, be they scientific or by using a specific description, one can make no mistake about what is being described. Thus, Socrates was trying to seek out the very best definitions for moral and ethical concepts such as piety, goodness and justice so that these could be as clearly expressed as any other idea.
Clearly, definition, according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is “The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.” (American)
Kemerling suggest five different kinds of definition. In his web based essay, he lists stipulative, lexical, précising, theoretical and persuasive definition as ways to define words. Each of these definitions must be explored in order to prove the superiority of the Socratic Method. Using the stipulative definition, words are defined by arbitrarily assigning meanings to words not already in use. If we arbitrarily assign meanings to words using this method, they can never be incorrect, no matter how awkward or inadequate the meanings. Stipulative Definition obviously cannot be useful in helping define concepts such as justice. Justice obviously has some meaning and cannot be arbitrarily assigned a new meaning without further complicating the issues.
Lexical Definition, or the use of a term within a specific community, may have some limited use in determining meaning of ethical issues within that community, but if these terms cannot be defined in a broader sense, they must be rejected until we can define them in the universal.
Using a combination of Stipulative and Lexical Definitions, another form of assigning meanings is brought to life.
“Combining these two techniques is often an effective way to reduce the vagueness of a word or phrase. These précising definitions begin with the lexical definition of a term but then propose to sharpen it by stipulating more narrow limits on its use. Here, the lexical part must be correct and the stipulative portion should appropriately reduce the troublesome vagueness.” (Kemperling)
Again, because of the use of the Lexical Definition, or the defining of a term used
within the community, the definition is lacking in terms of universals. These words, even if the “troublesome” vagueness is removed by using the Précising Definition does not help make the word more useful in the comprehensive sense. In fact, by using this method of definition, a person may isolate the term to the specific community even further by attaching more Lexical Interpretation to it.
Theoretical Definition is the logical explanation of a word. More clearly, this theory of definition is based on scientific hypothesis. Obviously, terms in the moral sense, such as good, bad, and evil cannot ever be defined in a scientific view. Vice, virtue and ethics are not subject to the normal adaptation of the scientific hypotheses as means of proving or disproving their validity. The Socratic Method does however have a form of testing that is related to scientific hypothesis but not in the conventional sense. This will be further explored in the section devoted to Five Characteristics of the Socratic Method.
The final Kemperling definition is Persuasive Definition. Charles Leslie Stevenson, author of several books including “The Emotive Meanings of Ethical Terms” and “Ethics and Language” stated that the most common usage of the Persuasive Definition is to “try and change the descriptive meaning of an emotionally-charged evaluative term.” (Kemperling) Instead of trying to define words more clearly, we should change the meaning if they are emotionally charged? If this is done with words like justice, then to a mother who has lost a child to a murderer, this word has no meaning.
Some words are supercharged with emotion to begin with. Words like evil are somewhat based in the emotive responses that they produce. In order to know that someone or something is evil, then there must be some response that is recognized within the human psyche that triggers the notion of evil. Socrates was directly searching for these triggers so that we could define words like evil. If we change the meaning of emotionally charged words, then the meanings of the words themselves are changed and we are left wondering if the true meaning has been altered to fit our needs again.
The Method Explained
The Socratic Method is a form of defining terms by using an interrogative method of discussion. By questioning the interlocutor, Socrates narrowed the meaning of the terms he was searching for the definitions for. Many times, the quest for the meaning ceased because of frustration from the interlocutor. For example, Euthyphro left the conversation in “Euthyphro” because Socrates would not accept any of the answers that were given during the exchange. Ever seeking to refine the thought, Socrates kept pressing Euthyphro to refine his answers.
There are five basic parts of the Socratic Method. Where examples are needed, “Euthyphro” will be used as reference.
Five Features of the Socratic Method
To begin with, the Socratic Method is ever skeptical. Socrates sought to meliorate the terms during these discussions. The method he used was to interrogate, or question the interlocutor until a consensus was reached of the definition sought or until the interlocutor gave up. More often than not the latter happened as in “Euthyphro” the conversation ended abruptly and Euthyphro walked away with Socrates still unsatisfied in his quest for the definition of piety.
Secondly, the Socratic Method is conversational. “It is the art of intellectual midwifery, which brings other men's ideas to birth.” (Samples) By saying “midwifery”, Ken Samples is trying to say that the method that Socrates used brought new ideas to birth. By being conversational and at the same time, ultra-critical of the ideas brought to the debate by the interlocutor, Socrates not only helped himself to define moral and ethical issues, he pointed out flaws in the beliefs of the interlocutor. So, in reality, Socrates sought not only the truth for himself personally, but also to enlighten his participating audience to the error of their own thought.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the Socratic Method is the third aspect, and that is definitional character. Clear, concise definitive answers were the most important aspect of these dialogues. The prize that Socrates sought was most usually elusive and did not reach the target of perfect definition. More often than not, the discussions ended as “Euthyphro” did. The interlocutor drifted off in puzzlement not knowing what to think of their own beliefs and Socrates standing and desiring to pursue the intellectual conversation further.
Fourthly, according to Samples, the Socratic Method is inductive. Similar to Scientific Method, each answer provided by the interlocutor is inquisitively pulled apart by Socrates one idea at a time. Like a scientist in search of a specific solution to a research project, Socrates tested his participant’s answers by putting them to the test of “common experience and general usages.” For example, when Euthyphro answered by saying that pious acts are those loved by the Gods, the first thing Socrates does is to repeat the question and certify the answer given. When he is sure of the answer given, there is a multitude of in depth discovery of the error of the answer and Euthyphro attempts again and again to answer the question of “What is Piety?” The inductive method used by Socrates is the superlative technique in approaching these concealed answers to ethical questions.
The final characteristic in the Samples list is deduction. Although the method is implied, there are no deductively valid arguments, or those being where the premises absolutely provide conclusive evidence of the hypothesis in “Euthyphro”. Socrates and Euthyphro never come to a conclusion about what exactly the concept of “piety” is. There is deduction in the Method.
Applying the Socratic Method
This classical technique leads students to recognize contradictions between values they avow and the choices they make -- and shows them that they have the power to choose. (Elkind/Sweet)
Perhaps teachers should explore the Socratic Method in order to bring ethical and moral issues back into the classroom without offending school boards and parents. Ethical issues about theft and keeping things that don’t belong to you can be explored without breaching the subject of god. In the Elkind/Sweet article, there is a dialogue created to help children approach subjects of ethics without denouncing them or using guilt inducing techniques to induce proper behavior. A young child is “guided” through a conversation about a fifty dollar bill dropped by an elderly person in a store. When asked if the money should be kept, the child answers that it should. In the following dialogue, it is pointed out, using the child’s answers that there are mistakes in reasoning and the possibility that the reasoning needs to be changed in order to achieve the “good”. By asking the child to apply it to a recognizable situation, that being a movie in which a character also keeps the money. The child is forced to recognize that the behavior chosen may not be proper. By asking the proper questions, as Socrates did, there may not be concrete definitions, but at the end of the debate, there are clearer paths to the truth. By guiding the child to self reflection, the answers they choose will be more able to be validated later in life because they themselves chose the path to their own behavior. Instead of being told what to do, the child makes the choices. I think Socrates may have been aware that most answers to ethical and moral definitions are mostly relative to the situation in which they appear. However, I also believe that he was aware that choices made during self reflection and analysis of our answers were the best choices.
So we can see that applying the Socratic Method of Definition in the classroom is the best way to teach ethical and moral issues not currently required to be taught in modern schools. In order to enrich children's minds, we must teach them to think about the choices they make. When the only resources they have is to sift through what they have been told to do, then the choices they make will become clouded by apprehension because they have not been able to apply the knowledge being given to them.
Using the Socratic Method for Definition
Clearly, when the Socratic Method is used for finding definitions of ethical and moral matters, the answers, although not definitive, are the best possible solutions to obscure concepts. By negating what we think our answers to these issues, we actually draw closer to answers to apply as solutions to our dilemma. While the listed types of definitions are all very clear in their own right, those being stipulative, lexical, précising, theoretical and persuasive definition, they all lack the somewhat profound effect that the Socratic Method has to enlighten readers, teachers and students alike.
Modern Culture Suffers From Lack of Formal Education
Modern American society in a supreme effort to eliminate racism and prejudice, has eliminated the teaching of moral and ethical dilemma at the public school level. In order to eradicate problems caused by diverse religion and ethnic backgrounds in modern society, the Supreme Court, the United States Government, local officials and school boards have decided that it is best that teachers leave these issues to the parents of the children. Ethical and moral problems facing children today should be handled at the family level. Sadly though, this has caused a ripple effect in our culture that has led to high crime rates, extraordinary divorce rates, and children are now left on their own to decide what is right and wrong. The very thing taken away from our schools has caused a crumbling from within. By reintroducing the Socratic Method back into public education, such issues as stealing, murder, racism, discrimination, religious tolerance and simply asking “What is the Good?” may again be explored in our schools without emphasis on god(s) or any other religious vehicle.
and finally…
Why Does the Socratic Method Remain Effective?
The thesis of this paper has been “The technique called the Socratic Method of Question and Answer is still the best way to define the ambiguous moral notions such as justice, piety and goodness.” Throughout, I have discussed the different parts of the Method, the varied definitions of the word “definition” and the ways that society as a whole has suffered for lack of the training of our nation’s children to reason. If, in fact, we are to remain a viable culture, then we as a society must begin to solve the moral dilemmas we face every day. By training our children to think, instead of just react, or by teaching them to face dilemma instead of ignoring it, we can begin to inject a form of reason back into our culture. The Socratic Method, if used correctly, can, and will teach our school children to reason instead of react. If a child faced with a moral or ethical issue recognizes it as such and explores the fundamental ways to achieve harmony, then society as a whole gains. The Method teaches us to search out own definitions of what is the good by holding it up against other, similar problems and relating them to issues relevant to modern culture. Although thousands of years old, the Method clearly explains what it means to find definitive answers in an ever-changing society. Social norms mutate at a constant level. Something that may correct today may be ethically wrong tomorrow. The Socratic Method can be employed again and again without restraint to search out new meaning to a complex society.
Theologians, philosophers, teachers, students and the common person can use the Socratic Method to find these answers in a non-judgmental environment.
