Moral and Emotional Responses to the Challenge

Moral and Emotional Responses to the Challenge of Thrasymachus

Might makes right. So suggests the character of Thrasymachus in Plato's "Republic." In other words, justice and morality is merely defined by who is stronger. The proper role of morality in both reason and the emotions is dependant simply upon what one wants to do, at that point in time, and how one can best achieve one's objective. In politics, the strongest person defines what is just and moral, because the strongest person will always rule according to the real world laws of the political jungle. Socrates, of course, offers the opposing view, that only the wisest should rule, the philosopher kings of the ideal state, who put subjective emotion aside and rule purely by objective reason. While Thrasymachus suggests that 'the world,' that is the material existence around us (including our emotions) should be the ultimate proving-ground of any moral system, Socrates suggests the contrary, namely that morality has an objective reality and existence beyond what we see around us.

A corollary to what Thrasymachus suggests might be that 'if it feels good, do it.' Namely, that if one's emotions give validation to one's power, dominance, and morality, than it must be good. Socrates, however, suggests that the material world is a poor moral determinant of right and wrong behavior, as the earthly world is itself merely an imperfect reflection of the truer life of the forms, rather than of 'real' objective goodness, morality, or justice, itself. Because of the imperfect nature of the moral world, thus our human 'gut' instinct is often wrong. Just as the body is less perfect than the soul, so the emotions are less perfect tools to use in making moral judgments. To be moral is to not serve one's emotional and personal self-interests, but to serve the objective principles of morality. Even, in the ideal Platonic kingdom, the philosopher kings who were fit to rule would be able to put aside their own interests and merely reign in the interests of the state. They would rule because of their innate rational superiority, superior to the lower orders, as the head was to the hands and lower bodily regions, superior as the earth is to the higher cosmic world of the perfect forms.

In contrast to Plato, however, Kant places slightly more trust in the instincts and emotions than does the Greek philosopher. Kant states that morality is a kind of dialogue between what the moral actors senses are emotionally correct, and what he or she knows to be correct. But like Socrates, Kant insists that there be no contingency upon the good of actions, that one cannot use worldly standards of what 'works' in the material world to validate moral goods. In other words, unlike Thrasymachus, who might say that because someone has been able to strong-arm his way to leadership, he has earned the moral right to kingship, Plato would respond that the leader has simply proven he is the physically fittest amongst men, or the most able to gain brutal supporters to enforce his reign of tyranny. The tyrant has not proved himself the most rationally fit to govern simply because he excels in swaying the multitudes or because of his physical prowess.

Plato would state that just because such strong arm tactics may work in the real world, simply proves the inferior notion of this shadowy existence -- much like the reflections of the forms upon the wall of the cave, the imperfect nature of the political systems that may work in the moment do not validate their innate justice, even if they feel good to the individuals whom these moral systems serve. While Kant would agree with Plato that objectivity is key in the creation of a moral system, and Kant would also state as well that morality should be striven for not simply because an act works, like Thrasymachus' coming to power through force, he does not exclude all emotion from one's reasoning as does Plato. Kant would highlight one of the problems of Plato's formula that it is so idealized and objectively removed from the moral dilemmas human beings face of a daily basis, it is difficult to use in ethical practice.

Instead, Kant would content that the tyranny's self-interested rule is contrary to the laws of nature that should support all moral life and existence. According to Kant, for a natural law to work, everyone must act according to it -- but if everyone acted as Thrasymachus suggests, we would all be dead, in a constant state of warfare, for if might was the only universal law, then everyone would be in a constant state of miserable and bloody contention between themselves. This would satisfy neither the emotional nor reasoned health of anyone -- thus Thrasymachus' argument falls on both a gut level as well as a logical level