Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Socrates, a foundational figure in Western philosophy, vehemently opposed the notion of morality being solely based on subjective feelings. His emphasis on reason and virtue stands in stark contrast to moral relativism, which posits that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (e.g., a culture or a historical period). The quote encapsulates his belief that a morality anchored in fluctuating emotional values is fundamentally flawed, lacking the stability and truth necessary for a meaningful ethical life. This essay will explore Socrates’s critique of such a system, highlighting its inherent weaknesses and the importance of objective moral principles.
Understanding Relative Emotional Values
A morality based on “relative emotional values” essentially equates right and wrong with personal preferences or societal norms. What feels good, or what a particular group believes is right, becomes the basis for ethical judgment. This is often termed ethical subjectivism or cultural relativism. For example, practices like sati (widow immolation) were once considered morally acceptable within certain cultural contexts, justified by prevailing emotional and social values.
Socrates’s Critique: Illusion and Vulgarity
Socrates believed that true morality must be grounded in reason and an understanding of objective good. He argued that if morality is merely a matter of feeling, it becomes arbitrary and unstable. If ‘good’ is simply what *feels* good, then conflicting feelings lead to conflicting moral codes, rendering any meaningful ethical discourse impossible.
The Problem of Objectivity
Socrates’s method of elenchus (cross-examination) aimed to expose contradictions in people’s beliefs and lead them towards a clearer understanding of truth. He would argue that if morality is relative, there is no standard by which to judge one set of values as superior to another. This leads to a moral impasse where any action, no matter how harmful, could be justified based on someone’s subjective feelings.
The Absence of True Virtue
For Socrates, virtue (arete) was not simply a matter of feeling good, but of living a life guided by reason and knowledge of the good. A morality based on emotions lacks this intellectual component. It is “vulgar” in the sense that it appeals to base instincts rather than higher faculties of reason.
Implications of a Subjective Morality
- Erosion of Justice: Without objective standards, justice becomes arbitrary and susceptible to manipulation.
- Social Fragmentation: Conflicting emotional values can lead to social division and conflict.
- Moral Decay: A lack of firm moral principles can lead to a decline in ethical behavior.
Consider the example of differing views on euthanasia. A purely emotional response might lead some to support it based on compassion, while others oppose it based on religious or personal beliefs. Without a reasoned framework, resolving this conflict becomes exceedingly difficult.
Conclusion
Socrates’s assertion that a morality based on relative emotional values is an “illusion” remains profoundly relevant today. While acknowledging the role of emotions in moral experience, he rightly points to the necessity of reason and objective principles for a stable and meaningful ethical life. A purely subjective morality risks descending into chaos and undermines the very foundations of justice and social order. The pursuit of virtue, guided by reason, remains the cornerstone of a truly ethical existence.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.