How did Socrates view morality?

Question

According to what I read "good" is knowledge particularly reliable knowledge tested through argumentation or what he called dialectic technique...whatever we do, if it means shaping our soul to a set of true moral values (true moral values=reliable knowledge), then we are doing good...

Wrongdoing on the other hand is involuntary..that means if we do something wrong then we are doing something outside our knowledge, outside the set of true moral values...which may mean that we don't know what we are doing because it is out of the range of our knowledge hence it is involuntary...

bottomline:
good=knowledge
bad=ignorance

this what I understood about Socrates' moral thoughts...

did I misunderstood anything?

Knowledge has everything to do with socrates' moral thoughts and so is virtue...you might want to read Plato' Dialogues, the Apology (reread again), and Euthyphro....

OUr soul for SOcrates is our conscious personality..this is who we are and what others view in us. Our goal is to make our soul as good as possible and to do that means to shape our soul based on a set of true moral values, otherwise called our KNOWLEDGE...the question is how can we know that our knowledge is the true basis of righteousness?...this is where Socrates' own technique come into picture--the so-called DIALECTIC technique...
Through the dialectic method, one can discuss specific situations with others, argue and come up with a generalization of what is really right...

Don't assume you know everything just because you read the apology...

Yes, there is something not convincing in Socrates' moral thoughts but this is really how he viewed morality..

Answer 1

The Republic: Book Two

Content and Dialogue

In the beginning of the Book, Thrasymachus has left the discussion, feeling that his opinion was correct no matter what was said; being an old man with unchanging views he must rely on. However, Plato’s brothers, Glaucon and Adeimantus, who resume Thrasymachus’ view, are willing and able to discuss the topic without prejudices. While both want Socrates to prove that morality (justice) is not only desired for its consequences while contributing to one’s internal happiness, but also for it itself, Glaucon defends the view that morality is simply the lesser evil between morality and immorality, and Adeimantus defends the view that morality is simply valued for its rewards. Through Socrates’ critique of their proposal for a test comparing a man that is moral but found seen as being immoral and a man that immoral but seen as being moral, they decide to leave the thought of comparing morality and immorality through the reputation it brings. In fact, the three decide (specifically Socrates) to examine morality using a city to magnify its qualities. The three begin by making the city from nothing, excluding all nonessentials (people, things and processes). However, one need leads to the next, and by the time they have finished, the city has grown to be quite a large city. Once they realize that wars are inevitable, it seems obvious that a military is needed. These people must be separate from the workers, because as earlier discussed, one is most productive when used for only one purpose. However, these guardians must be taught to know only what is needed – the need to censor stories that may contradict what is good and what is bad. One example is that their perception of God must be of a perfectly good God, and all must have the same views. Once finished, Glaucon is not satisfied, and is actually quite disgusted as to how the people of the city live (as pigs). Also, the topic of God is debated, for the guards are to be taught a view of God, and thus they must find that view.







Theory

In the beginning of the Book, the two brothers make it clear to Socrates that they are looking for the answers that others have not been able to find (one that satisfies, concluding any further discussion). In order to do so, they abandon the two original theories, and instead have Socrates try to prove that morality does indeed make someone happy, provide desired consequences, and is desired for itself. Finding problems examining the topic through one person, Socrates proposes making the perfect city to be used to examine morality easily (or as easy as possible). Therefore, everything concerning this city and how it works reflects a person. The topic most heavily discussed involves the guards of the city. These guards can represent how a person can be influenced by outside forces, and how these forces can effect the actions that result. In fact, they are discussing how one can be subjected to harmful forces – and the necessary censorship that must occur. The education of these guards will affect the city as a whole, because the very views and thoughts of these men will determine the safety of the city.



Understanding

Book 1: No conclusion is made as to what justice is

Book 2:

· Glaucon and Adeimantus attempt to find the value of justice, specifically as to the worth compared to injustice

· At this time in history, these philosophers are educated concerning democracy and its results

· Also, they are familiar with the problems with a terrible leader – finding that it is necessary for the leader to be a perfect intellect with perfect understanding and insight

· Through the analysis of the leader’s education, one finds that these men believe in complete censorship of anything that can be controversial (especially concerning the perception of God(s)) or bad

· These leaders must rely on reason, not passion – which is one reason the philosophers believed they would succeed

· By removing passion from the process of education, the philosophers also attack drama and the arts (whom all philosophers were fighting at the time for credibility)

Answer 2

Socrates Morality

Answer 3

The key to a good life in Socratic terms is to steer clear of double ignorance...that is pridefully believing you know what you do not truly have knowledge of. The Socratic Method's entire purpose was to steer the thinker clear of this "Cardinal Sin" of Arrogance.

Your bottomlining of Socrates is vexing - good has nothing to do with knowledge, because the truly wise ones understand that they know nothing.

If you have to bottomline the morality of Socrates...Bad is Double Ignorance...Good is the quest for Answers to the right questions.

The truest depiction of his morality is in his Apology...

Realize that Morality is what it means to live a good human life...don't sell Socrates short until you view how he died by his own moral code...though he could have lived an exile.

Answer 4

If one knows the good, one will always do the good. It follows, then, that anyone who does anything wrong doesn't really know what the good is. This, for Socrates, justifies tearing down people's moral positions, for if they have the wrong ideas about virtue, morality, love, or any other ethical idea, they can't be trusted to do the right thing.

Confusing ain't it. sounds like if he didn't agree with you, you were wrong and he was justified in tearing down what you thought or did. Unless he would be willing to let general consensus override personal opinions. That means majority rule and the majority will say what is right and what is wrong. and therefore what is moral and what is immoral.

Answer 5

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
How did Socrates view morality?
According to what I read "good" is knowledge particularly reliable knowledge tested through argumentation or what he called dialectic technique...whatever we do, if it means shaping our soul to a set of true moral values (true moral values=reliable knowledge), then we are doing...

Answer 6

He thought that religion and morality were not mutually exclusive.