forensic evidence- unit 1- book summary

In contrast to Protagoras, the next generation of Sophists carried moral relativism to the more radical level of moral realism, a pragmatic social philosophy unfettered by any moral considerations. The laws of every society, says the moral realist, turn out to reflect the interests of those in power. The U.S. Constitution, for example, places great emphasis on property rights and protections because most of its chief architects were landed gentry: persons with property. Hence their view of the "ideal" state reflected and furthered their material interests. Each new Supreme Court reflects the values of the majority of its members, now liberal, now conservative. The "right" view is the view held by those currently in power. The rest of us, says the moral realist, ultimately obey because we have to; we have no other choice: Regardless of whether we believe that what is legal is also right, the average person obeys anyway because he or she lacks sufficient power (and courage) not to obey. When Aesop's lion was shown a painting in which a man was depicted killing a lion, he commented contemptuously, "The artist was obviously a man." — B. F. Skinner From a certain perspective, history seems to support the view that might and power determine right. But what about counterexamples like the civil rights movement of the 1960s? Here "right" finally prevailed, even against centuries of custom and habit that supported racist practices. This example seems to show that moral progress is possible and that not everyone acts from limited self-interest. The majority of just acts according to the law are prescribed contrary to nature. For there is legislation about the eyes, what they must see and what not; and about the ears, what they must hear and what not; and about the tongue, what it must speak and what not; and about the hands, what they must do and what not; and about the feet, where they must go and where not. And about the soul, what it must desire and what not. — Antiphon

A contemporary Sophist could point out, however, that civil rights changes occurred in this country only after members of the powerful white middle class began to support the position of the nonwhite minorities. The view of the most powerful faction of the time won. Civil might made civil rights. The same is true of women's rights. Women's rights have increased in proportion to women's power. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and other groups have rights in direct proportion to their might. The elderly will have more rights in the future because they will outnumber members of other age groups for years to come. In recent years, states have increasingly broadened the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage. Gender rights advocates are calling for the expansion of gender-equity rights for transgendered and transsexual individuals. Medical marijuana advocates are working to extend the right to grow and smoke marijuana. As the number of undocumented or illegal immigrants grows, so do concerns over what constitutes the "right" to vote or have a driver's license. And so it goes. Your philosophy instructor has more power over your philosophy course than you do. Thus—ultimately—her interpretation of your test is more "right" than yours. Her answers are more "useful" than yours. Parents are "right" about many things simply because they have more power than children. Whoever has power gets to be right. Or so it seems.

The scene. A society showing signs of tension and strain, yet still exciting and important. The privileges of the establishment are being challenged by immigrants and more liberal democratic groups. Wealthy parents pay outrageous tuitions to have their children taught by prestigious educators, only to have these very same children then reject their parents' ideals and beliefs. People complain that atheistic, relativistic trends are permeating the schools and that basic values are breaking down. Traditional religions and beliefs are challenged by intellectuals, by occult practices, and by competing "foreign" religions. Scientific, mathematical, and intellectual advances compete for social control and influence with conservative, fundamentalist religious and moral tenets. Political corruption is pervasive and public. People take one another to court for a variety of real and inflated slights and transgressions. Success, prestige, and power become the overriding goals of many. Consider one commentator's description: It seems as if the dominant drive of more and more citizens is the objective of getting as rich as possible. ... Meanwhile the money-makers, bent on their business, . . . continue to inject their poisoned loans wherever they can, and to demand high rates of interest, with the result that drones and beggars multiply. ... Yet even when the evil becomes flagrant [the rulers] will do nothing to quench it. ... This being so, won't everyone arrange his life as pleases him best? It's a wonderfully pleasant way of carrying on in the short-run, isn't it? It's an agreeable, anarchic form of society, with plenty of variety, which treats all men as equal, whether they are or not. It is a picture easy to recognize. "Meanwhile the moneymakers . . . continue to inject their poisoned loans . . . and to demand high rates of interest, with the result that drones and beggars multiply." -Plato

America today? No. You have just read Plato's characterization of the "democratic" state of Athens. Because of their sophisticated, successful civilization, the Athenians had long viewed themselves as unique, special, superior to all others. The Athens of around 500-400 b.c.e. attracted aspiring entrepreneurs from all over Greece and parts of Asia. Those who considered themselves "original, true Athenians" grew uncomfortable and defensive. The Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and black, the Thracians that theirs have light blue eyes and red hair. — Xenophanes Social scientists call this attitude ethnocentrism (from Greek roots meaning "the race or group is the center"). Ethnocentric individuals see their ways as inherently superior to all others: Their religion is the one true religion. Their science, music, tastes in all areas of life are unsurpassed. The ethnocentric person thinks, "The gods speak our language, look like us, are our color. Our family practices are natural, others are deviant." © ScienceCartoonsPlus.com Yet things aren't so simple. In some cultures eating the flesh of a cow is forbidden. In other cultures, it is not. Some people get sick at the mere idea of eating a dog or monkey; to others, such culinary practices are normal. Ethnocentrism is what makes us laugh at the way other people dress or talk. We even do this to other citizens of our own country. Some Southerners make fun of people with a "New York accent," while certain New Yorkers mock those with "Southern accents." The ethnocentric person thinks that he or she doesn't even have an accent! Dogs bark at strangers. — Heraclitus The Greeks of this time were so ethnocentric that they invented the term barbarian to mock people who spoke other languages. They mimicked the way foreigners talked by making a sound something like "bar, bar, bar." Today we would probably say, "blah, blah, blah." So the outsiders were bar-bar-ians (or blah-blah-ians)—people whose language sounded like noise or nonsense to the Greeks. To these Greeks, other cultures were simply "uncivilized," "less human." But what happens when a closed-off culture begins to interact with other highly civilized cultures on a regular basis? Philosophical Query Can you think of any ways you are ethnocentric? What are some close parallels between Athens of the fifth century B.C.E. and America after September 11, 2001? Discuss. Ultimately—and understandably—for many people philosophy developed a conflicted and confused reputation, something at once noble and somehow ridiculous. The religion of one seems madness unto another. — Sir Thomas Browne This clouded reputation haunts philosophy to this day, as we saw in the Introduction. "What are you philosophers good for," we are asked, "if you can hold contradictory and absurd ideas that bear no resemblance to common sense? How can the rest of us take seriously your charges that we can never experience reality, that our most cherished and widely held beliefs are merely illusions, that our thinking is muddled, that we, the majority, are wrong and that our unwillingness to agree with you is a symptom of our ignorance rather than your own? If even the most careful philosophical thinkers end up in such tangles, maybe it's better to think less and enjoy life more." This suspicious attitude toward philosophy contributed to a philosophical and cultural revolution that occurred when the first "professional" thinkers, known as Sophists, turned from the study of the cosmos to the study of human beings and brought philosophy back down to Earth. The Sophists' demands for "philosophy that pays" blew through the ancient world like a bracing wind.

Not everybody willingly submits to those in power or depends on a group for clout. Those who do not are well represented by a Sophist named Callicles (c. 435 b.c.e.). His version of moral realism goes by different names: the doctrine of the superior individual, the true man, the natural man, the superman. You may recognize foreshadowings of Nazism, racism, and religious intolerance in the doctrine of the superior individual. It is always elitist, but it is not always a racial doctrine. Indeed, in its most compelling form, it is highly individualistic, holding that a person is superior not because of ethnic or cultural background but only because of individual virtues and traits. (We will study one of the most notorious expressions of this view in Chapter 16.) Callicles distinguished what is right by nature from what is right by convention. In the following selection from Plato's Gorgias, Callicles asserts that by nature the strong dominate the weak, whereas conventional morality tries to restrain the superior, strong, truly powerful individual. In nature, the survival of the fittest is the rule. This, said Sophists such as Callicles, shows that power is the ultimate value and that the superior and powerful individual has a natural right to dominate others. All people are no more created equal than all animals are. For to suffer wrong is not the part of a man at all, but that of a slave for whom it is better to be dead than alive, as it is for anyone who is unable to come either to his own assistance when he is wronged or mistreated or to that of anyone he cares about. I can quite imagine that the manufacturers of laws and conventions are the weak, the majority, in fact. It is for themselves and their own advantage that they make their laws and distribute their praises and their censures. It is to frighten men who are stronger than they and able to enforce superiority that they keep declaring, to prevent aggrandizement, that this is ugly and unjust, that injustice consists in seeking to get the better of one's neighbor. They are quite content, I suppose, to be on equal terms with others since they are themselves inferior. This, then, is the reason why convention declares that it is unjust and ugly to seek to get the better of the majority. But my opinion is that nature herself reveals it to be only just and proper that the better man should lord it over his inferior: It will be the stronger over the weaker. Nature, further, makes it quite clear in a great many instances that this is the true state of affairs, not only in the other animals, but also in whole states and communities. This is, in fact, how justice is determined: The stronger shall rule and have the advantage over his inferior. ... Now, my dear friend, take my advice: Stop your [philosophy], take up the Fine Art of Business, and cultivate something that will give you a reputation for good sense. Leave all these over-subtleties to someone else. Should one call them frivolities or just plain nonsense? They'll only land you in a house where you'll be the only visitor! You must emulate, not those whose very refutations are paltry, but men of substance and high repute and everything else that is good.

An apocryphal story about the legendary lawyer Clarence Darrow circulates among law students: Darrow had to defend an especially unsavory client. This was a hard case to make. As the prosecutor ranted and raved to the jury about the heinous nature of the crime and the plight of the suffering victims, Darrow paid him close and courteous attention, puffing distractedly on a large cigar. The ash grew, an eighth of an inch, a quarter, a half, an inch or more—yet did not fall. Darrow didn't seem to notice. He just politely concentrated on the prosecutor's words. But the jury noticed. Instead of paying full attention to the prosecutor, they were drawn again and again to Darrow's cigar—into which he had secretly inserted a thin piece of wire. One sophistry used by contemporary Darrows is having their clients dress "persuasively." Wealthy defendants Erik and Lyle Menendez often wore "college boy" crewneck sweaters at their trials for killing their parents. O. J. Simpson testified that he could not pay the $30 million civil judgment against him while uncharacteristically wearing inexpensive shoes—and slacks with a hole in the backside. Sophists were also notorious for "making the better argument appear the worse" by playing word games. Of course, what's a "word game" and what's "being precise" is itself the sort of issue sophists addressed. In 1998, then-president Bill Clinton came under scrutiny for answering a question about whether or not he was having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky by stating that the answer "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Some commentators accused President Clinton of sophistry. What do you think? Even today, with all of our "sophisticated" understanding of the world and our technology, many of us find the natural world haunting, beckoning, awe-inspiring. Just imagine what thoughts and feelings a starry sky might have inspired in the psyche of a Heraclitus, Parmenides, Democritus, or Thales. How could they not help but wonder, not help but begin to philosophize? Is it any wonder that we wonder?

The questions raised by the Sophists are important, not just in the dusty archives of scholarly concerns but also because of the continuing influence sophistic ideas exert on our lives and beliefs. Sophists helped free the Greeks to think on new, less restricted levels. From this beginning emerged a nonreligious (amoral) scientific method as well as a philosophic method of questioning, both of which are free to pursue knowledge for its own sake and wherever it leads. The Sophists laid the cornerstone for the scientific study of human behavior—what would become the social, psychological, political, and anthropological sciences. In other words, the Sophists helped break the shackles of dogma and superstition. For that, we remain in their debt. Go about with your middle finger up and people will say you're daft; go about with your little finger out, and they will cultivate your company. — Diogenes Fools shiver with excitement about everything they hear. — Heraclitus The Sophists' emphasis on the individual as determiner of value and the challenges Sophists posed to the possibility of a moral absolute contributed to increased democracy in Athens. Thus, the Sophists were perceived as a direct threat by the "establishment" of privileged aristocrats. The youth of Athens responded with gusto to these ideas, treating them as a call to unrestrained self-assertion and personal freedom. It was stimulating to challenge the stuffy, square, straight, uptight values of the establishment. The glorification of the "superior individual" or "natural man" appealed to adolescent cravings for power, fame, freedom, and identity. Logic and the rhetorical devices refined by the Sophists were liberally applied to legal maneuvering, politics, techniques of manipulation, and control of the marketplace. By the third generation, Sophists no longer claimed to be sophistai, teachers of wisdom, but advertised shortcuts to guaranteed social, political, financial, and personal success. These Sophists were the forerunners of today's how-to-succeed, you-can-have-it-all books, courses, and techniques. Freed of any moral anchor, the most ruthless Sophists were often deadly and effective. They took no responsibility for the ways people might use their ideas, as the great Sophist Gorgias reminds us:

And if a man learns rhetoric, and then does injustice through the power of his art, we shall not be right, in my opinion, in detesting and banishing his teacher. For while the teacher imparted instruction to be used rightly, the pupil made a contrary use of it. Therefore, it is only right to detest the misuser and banish and kill him, not his teacher. Although they were attacked by Plato and others on moral grounds, most Sophists were actually amoral (nonmoral) rather than immoral. Like the caricature of a mob attorney who uses all his persuasive skills to vigorously and lucratively defend known drug dealers and crime bosses, the Sophists made no moral judgments. They were concerned only with "what worked." They saw the world as hard and brutal, a jungle. Because, in their view, the restraints and inhibitions of morality weaken us, the Sophists refused to acknowledge any moral prohibitions. In contemporary terms, they were masters of "effective" thinking, communicating, and acting. Many sophistic techniques, like Darrow's cigar, are genuinely clever and clearly effective. The Sophists of ancient Athens inspired mixed feelings of awe and admiration, anger and disgust. They raised vital, ongoing questions: When the stakes are high, is playing fair the smart thing to do? Just how important is winning? And how should we be judged? On the conventional morals most of us profess? Or on the values we actually practice and (secretly?) admire: strength, power, daring, attractiveness, social contacts, success? Can we ever have objective knowledge or escape the limits of culture? In the absence of certainty, might it be better to allow more individual choice rather than less? It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. — William G. McAdoo Throughout this chapter we've noted the Sophists' interest in important social, political, and philosophical matters. Often, such "big issues" don't engage us personally precisely because they are big. It is as if they are "out there," affecting us only now and then, perhaps during philosophy class or political discussions or periods of reflection. They are, as it were, at a distance. From a distance, the Sophists are exciting, daring, brave, and brutally honest. But we've also seen how the Sophists' emphasis on rhetoric, convention, and persuasion attracted individuals whose interests were crudely pragmatic, personally ambitious, short-sighted, socially indifferent, venal, and close to home. These small-s sophists are uninterested in philosophical discussions of might making right or various forms of relativism or justice. No. Their goals are worldly and immediate. Today, when people talk about sophists they usually mean only win-at-any-cost, small-s sophists, the kind who treat their targets—be they customers, voters, jurors, objects of sexual or romantic interest—as mere means to ends. (See Chapter 11 for more about treating persons as means only.) As you reflect on the philosophical archetype of the Sophist, think about its place in today's world. As you are probably realizing, the similarities between the cultural climate of ancient Athens and that of contemporary America are widespread and deeply rooted. The Sophists represent one side of the timeless struggle between "the world" and wisdom. Because we all face this struggle, we're not just learning about the past, about dead ideas, but we are also learning about living issues. As the original Sophists grew in numbers and boldness, they attracted more and more enemies. Unable to distinguish sophistic philosophies from other forms, the citizens of Athens began to agree with each other that philosophy itself was unacceptably subversive. Philosophy's reputation for being somehow unpatriotic and dangerous was established. Into this breach stepped perhaps the single most influential and arresting philosopher of all, the first major philosopher of the West: Socrates.

Summary of Main Points

As Athens grew in influence it attracted more and more people from other city-states and countries. Opportunities for a growing number of Athenians to speak before the Assembly created a demand for specialized education in subjects such as letters, rhetoric, science, statesmanship, and philosophy. Those who considered themselves original, true Athenians became increasingly ethnocentric. Ethnocentrism is the tendency to consider one's own customs and values as superior to all others. The Sophists were the first professional educators, a group of wandering teachers who charged a fee to teach anyone who wished to study with them. Sophists argued that the difference between a good argument and a bad argument is custom and individual preference. The Sophists believed that virtually nothing is good or bad by nature, but only by custom and preference. They argued that truth is relative and that knowledge is determined by specific qualities of the observer. Cultural relativism is the belief that all values are culturally determined. Individual relativism is the belief that even in the same place and time, right and wrong are relative to the unique experiences and preferences of the individual. Protagoras of Abdera was one of the most influential of the Sophists. He said that morals are nothing more than the social traditions, or mores, of a society or group and that following local mores is the best way to live successfully and well—in that place. Hence his famous remark: Man is the measure of all things. Later generations of Sophists carried moral relativism to more radical levels than Protagoras did. Moral realism is the belief that all values reflect the interests of the strong. Certain values dominate because they are the views preferred by the most powerful individual or group, not because they are in some absolute sense "right." Callicles was a Sophist associated with an aspect of moral realism known as the doctrine of the superior individual, which holds that nature dictates that the strong should dominate the weak.

The original Sophists were wandering teachers who gravitated toward Athens during the fertile fifth century b.c.e. They were also the first professional teachers, charging a fee to teach anyone who wished to study with them. They made Athenian education democratic, at least in the sense that all who could pay were equal. It was no longer necessary to belong to a certain family—as long as you had enough money to pay high tuitions. The sophos, in contrast to the Sophist, had followers and disciples rather than paying students. The Sophists also differed from the sophos in that the Sophists turned increasingly from the study of nature to the formal study of human life and conduct. Many of them had traveled rather widely and thus were "sophisticated," or worldly wise. (We get the word sophisticated from this period.) The Sophists knew firsthand about various cultures; they had witnessed a variety of religious practices and had experienced a variety of tastes in clothing, food, family patterns, legal values, and morals. In many ways, the Sophists can be thought of as the first social scientists, combining, as it were, anthropology, psychology, and sociology to produce a particular view of social life and human nature. Their sophistication was a direct threat to the chauvinistic elite that ruled Athens. The idea that anyone with the fee could be educated was offensive to those who saw themselves as inherently superior. The Sophists looked closely at "what worked" in various cultures and concluded that virtually nothing was good or bad by nature, but that good and bad were matters of custom and preference. Further, they noticed that although different individuals desire different things, everyone seeks some form of power. The Sophists argued that every living thing seeks to be happy and to survive as long as possible, so the only "natural" good is power because power increases control over the conditions of happiness and survival. For instance, getting a new car won't make you happy if you cannot keep it. Being right about something at work won't help if you lack the ability (power) to get your boss to recognize it. Based on such observations, the Sophists concluded that so-called truth is subservient to power.

If a man were really able to instruct mankind, to receive money for giving instruction would, in my opinion, be an honour to him. — Socrates The Sophists remained professionals, in the sense of always demanding payment, eventually becoming infamous for their insistence on being well paid. It was widely believed that the worst of them would teach anything they could get someone to pay for. The Sophists' reputation also suffered because of their emphasis on winning debates in and out of court at all costs. Since they believed that power was the ultimate value, the key issue became not right or wrong, but getting your own way. "What Would You Do with the Ring of Gyges?" The technical name for the view that all morality reduces to self-interest is egoism. It is usually associated with moral skepticism, since it is the only source of values left for the moral skeptic. One of the earliest and most interesting presentations of the egoist's position occurs in Plato's Republic: Even those who practise justice do so against their will because they lack the power to do wrong. This we would realize if we clearly imagined ourselves granting to both the just and the unjust the freedom to do whatever they liked. We could then follow both of them and observe where their desires led them, and we would catch the just man redhanded travelling the same road as the unjust. The reason is the desire for undue gain which every organism by nature pursues as good, but the law forcibly sidetracks him to honour equality. The freedom I just mentioned would most easily occur if these men had the power which they say the ancestor of the Lydian Gyges possessed. The story is that he was a shepherd in the service of the ruler of Lydia. There was a violent rainstorm and an earthquake which broke open the ground and created a chasm at the place where he was tending sheep. Seeing this and marvelling, he went down into it. He saw, besides many other wonders of which we are told, a hollow bronze horse. There were window-like openings in it; he climbed through one of them and caught sight of a corpse which seemed of more than human stature, wearing nothing but a ring of gold on its finger. This ring the shepherd put on and came out. He arrived at the usual monthly meeting which reported to the king on the state of the flocks, wearing the ring. As he was sitting among the others he happened to twist the hoop of the ring towards himself, to the inside of his hand, and as he did this he became invisible to those sitting near him and they went off talking as if he had gone. He marvelled at this and, fingering the ring, turned the hoop outward again and became visible. Perceiving this he tested whether the ring had this power and so it happened: if he turned the hoop inwards he became invisible, but he was visible when he turned it outwards. When he realized this, he at once arranged to become one of the messengers of the king. He went, committed adultery with the king's wife, attacked the king with her help, killed him, and took over the kingdom. Now if there were two such rings, one worn by the just man, the other by the unjust, no one, as these people think, would be so incorruptible that he would stay on the path of justice or bring himself to keep away from other people's property and not touch it, when he could with impunity take whatever he wanted from the market, go into houses and have sexual relations with anyone he wanted, kill anyone, free all those he wished from prison, and do other things which would make him like a god among men. Plato, Republic , trans. G. M. A. Grube (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1974), p. 32f. As the Sophists became expert debaters and advertisers, they learned to use emotional appeals, physical appearance, and clever language to sell their particular point of view. These characteristics have led to the modern meaning of a sophistry as an example of overly subtle, superficially plausible, but ultimately fallacious reasoning. Plato characterizes the Sophist this way: The art of the Sophist is the semblance of wisdom without the reality, and the Sophist is one who makes money from an apparent but unreal wisdom. — Aristotle First, I believe he was found to be a paid hunter after the young and wealthy . . . secondly a kind of merchant in articles of knowledge for the soul . . . third did he not turn up as a retailer of these same articles of knowledge? . . . and in the fourth place we found he was a seller of his own products of knowledge . . . and in the fifth he was an athlete in contests of words, who had taken for his own the art of disputation . . . the sixth case was doubtful, but nevertheless we agreed to consider him a purger of souls, who removes opinions that obstruct learning. Socrates (Chapter 4), the first great Western philosopher, lived at the same time as the Sophists and was also a famous educator. He often had what he claimed were discussions with Sophists; the Sophists, however, thought they were contests. Many Athenians weren't sure whether Socrates was a Sophist or a sophos. Socrates himself, though, was clear on one thing: It is wrong to charge money for teaching philosophy. He said: [I believe] that it is possible to dispose of beauty or of wisdom alike honorably or dishonorably; for if a person sells his beauty for money to anyone who wishes to purchase it, men call him a male prostitute; but if anyone makes a friend of a person whom he knows to be an honorable and worthy admirer, we regard him as prudent. In like manner those who sell their wisdom for money to any that will buy, men call sophists, or, as it were, prostitutes of wisdom; but whoever makes a friend of a person whom he knows to be deserving, and teaches him all the good that he knows, we consider him to act the part which becomes a good and honorable citizen. Philosophical Query Discuss some of the pros and cons of personal education versus commercialized education. Try to consider a variety of factors: efficiency; effects of money on pupils, teachers, and institutions; mediocrity; conformity. Do you agree that it is wrong to "sell wisdom"? Is it realistic to expect teachers (or philosophers) to teach for free, for love only? Can't any source of financial support lead to bias? Must it?

The Sophists were among the first systematic thinkers to conclude that the truth is relative. Relativism is the belief that knowledge is determined by specific qualities of the observer. The Sophists, for example, claimed that place of birth, family habits, personal abilities and preferences, religious training, age, and so forth control an individual's beliefs, values, and even perceptions. (Don't confuse relativism with subjectivism, the belief that we can only know our own sensations.) Based on this tenet, the Sophists argued that we need only accept what, according to our culture, seems true at the moment. The most extreme Sophists claimed that even within the same culture, individuals have their own truths. The consequences of this position can be unsettling, to say the least. If no ultimate truth exists, no moral code is universally correct or absolutely superior to any other. The Sophists taught that each culture (or individual!) only believes that its ways are best, but the person who has studied many cultures knows better: One way is as good as another if you believe in it. There are two basic variants of relativism: cultural and individual. Cultural relativism is the belief that all values are culturally determined. Values do not reflect a divine order or a natural pattern, but merely the customs and preferences that develop in a given culture. Thus, what is right in America is not necessarily right in Saudi Arabia or Brazil. Your grandmother's sexual morality was right for a particular person at a particular time and place, but not for all people all the time and in every place. What is right for a twenty-year-old African American woman will be different from what is right for a ninety-year-old Chinese American man, and so on. Consequently, what's right for you may very well be different from what's right for people of different ages and backgrounds.

Individual relativism simply carries the logic of cultural relativism to a more radical conclusion. It goes like this: Even in the same place and time, right and wrong are relative to the unique experiences and preferences of the individual. There is no unbiased way to say that one standard is better than another because the standard used to make that claim is itself the reflection of a preference, ad infinitum. No matter how far back we push "ultimate" reasons, they always reduce to someone's preference. Hence, moral and social values are matters of individual taste and opinion. Comparing the lifestyle and beliefs of this contemporary Islamic woman to those of contemporary American women shows how difficult it is to dispute the Sophists' claim that all values are culturally determined.

ncient Athens was chauvinistic in many respects. For example, full citizenship was originally confined to males from certain aristocratic families. The ambitious, talented young immigrants from throughout the Mediterranean area who were attracted by Athens' vitality as a trading center had fewer rights and opportunities than did Athenian citizens. Regardless of their abilities, it was difficult, if not impossible, for noncitizens to achieve the same levels of success as those lucky enough to have been born into the right families. As the number of capable immigrants settling in and around Athens grew, tension and conflict became inevitable. The Athenians' snobbery was challenged. Some Persians and Spartans and Milesians were smarter, quicker, stronger, more attractive; some of their goods were of higher quality; their traders sometimes outfoxed Athenians. Thus, the Athenians' image of themselves as unique and superior people became increasingly difficult to maintain as interaction with people from other cultures increased (as is always ultimately the case). Indeed, great deliberate effort was required to maintain a view of unquestioned superiority. As the lively trade center flourished, the privileges of birth were challenged by the emergence of a wealthy new business class. Good business sense, personal charm and persuasiveness, the willingness to work hard, and individual ability began to be as important as having been born in the right place to the right kind of family. In this changing climate, more and more individuals were allowed both to speak before the Athenian Assembly and to sue one another over business and personal matters. The ability to think clearly and speak persuasively was a means for members of the new middle class to enter political life and to improve their social status. These conditions combined to create a demand for something unknown in the Mediterranean world before this time: formal, specialized higher education in such subjects as letters, rhetoric (persuasive speaking), science, statesmanship, and philosophy.

These social changes also affected philosophy. Presocratic philosophers had inconsistently asserted various explanations of "reality" that did not conform to common experience. Each theory was flawed. Each philosopher's position was criticized logically by a newer point of view, which was in turn criticized. Even good logic and sound reasoning seemed ultimately unhelpful in sorting things out. One problem was with the characteristics of arguments themselves. All arguments consist of two aspects: their logical structure and the truth (or falsity) of their content. Sound arguments consist of good reasoning based on true premises. If one or more premises of an argument are false, the conclusion will be unreliable. Thus, if its starting point is flawed, even the most tightly reasoned argument or theory will be flawed. Overwhelmed by so many conflicting theories, the new sophos of the fifth century b.c.e., now called a Sophist, concluded that it is impossible to discover "the Truth" because the only difference between a "good" argument and a "bad" argument is custom and individual preference. (See Chapters 14-17 for subsequent challenges to "the Truth.") The original Sophists were wandering teachers and the first philosophers to charge fees for their knowledge. Dea Picture Library/De Agostini Picture Library/Getty Images For Deeper Consideration "That's just your opinion" is an all-too-common—and lazy—response to all sorts of arguments and assertions these days. But if "all opinions are true," as Protagoras claimed, why dispute them? What grounds does any relativist have for being angry or claiming that nonrelativists are wrong when they reject relativism? Does the relativist need any grounds? And what sorts of grounds are we talking about—logical or psychological? If we can never get beyond opinions, what follows?

Perhaps the greatest of the Sophists was Protagoras of Abdera (481-411 b.c.e.). Attracted to Athens around the middle of the fifth century b.c.e., he became a famous teacher there. He was befriended by wealthy and powerful Athenians and, consequently, became rich and powerful himself. Plato even named a dialogue after him. Protagoras© Cengage Learning® Protagoras was an archetypal Sophist: an active traveler and first-rate observer of other cultures who noted that although there are a variety of customs and beliefs, each culture believes unquestioningly that its own ways are right—and roundly condemns (or at least criticizes) views that differ from its own. So he asked himself, "What really makes something right or wrong? Is anything really right or wrong? What is truth? Can we know it? Can we know that we know it, or are we limited to mere beliefs?" His answers may strike you as surprisingly contemporary. And they are—as the term Sophist suggests—quite sophisticated. "It's All Relative. Period!" If ethical relativism is correct, it is clearly impossible for the moral beliefs of a society to be mistaken because the certainty of the majority that its beliefs were right would prove that those beliefs were right for that society at that time. The minority view would therefore be mistaken, no matter what it was. Needless to say, most people who state that "in morals everything is relative" and who proceed to call themselves ethical relativists are unaware of these implications of their theory. ... "What is right in one group is wrong in another," he says. But what exactly is a group? and which group is one to select? Every person is a member of many different group—his nation, his state, his city, his club, his school, church, fraternity, or athletic association. Suppose that most of the people in his club think that a certain kind of act is wrong and that most of the people in his nation think it is right; what then? Probably most people who call themselves ethical relativists are not so at all, for they believe in one moral standard which applies in different ways to different societies because of the various conditions in which they live. One might as well talk about gravitational relativism because a stone falls and a balloon rises; yet both events are equally instances of one law of universal gravitation. John Hospers, Human Conduct: Problems of Ethics (Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth Publishing), 1995, pp. 33-35. Based on his observations and travels, Protagoras concluded that morals are nothing more than the social traditions, or mores, of a society or group. What makes the Athenian way right for someone living in Athens is that following the mores of one's place is the best way to live successfully and well—in that place. The task of the truly wise observer is to record accurately and describe without bias what works and what does not work. Hence, the famous remark quoted at the beginning of this chapter: Man is the measure of all things. Here is how Plato reported Socrates' characterization of what Protagoras meant: Well, is not this what [Protagoras] means, that individual things are for me such as they appear to me, and for you in turn such as they appear to you—you and I being "man"? . . . Is it not true that sometimes, when the same wind blows, one of us feels cold and the other does not? or one feels slightly and the other exceedingly cold? . . . Then in that case, shall we say that the wind is in itself cold or not cold; or shall we accept Protagoras' saying that it is cold for him who feels cold, not for him who does not? Protagoras predicted a crucial tenet of modern social science: Our values are determined by our culture, our conditioning, our experience, and our particular biopsychology. It is, according to Protagoras, utterly impossible to form a culture-free or context-free belief. For instance, philosophy students born, raised, and educated in Moscow, Russia, cannot help but "see" a different world than do those born, raised, and educated in Moscow, Idaho.

Thus, the useful issue is not what is true, since true always means "true for the believer." If Student A believes something, that alone makes it true from her perspective. The worthwhile issue is what "works" for Student A, not what is universally true or what "works" for Student B. The point of view that beliefs are to be interpreted in terms of "whether they work" (their usefulness) is called pragmatism, from the Greek pragma, "deed." Pragmatic ideas have meaning or truth value to the extent that they produce practical results and are effective in furthering our aims. (See Chapter 15.) Plato criticized Protagoras for—in Plato's view—reducing the concept of what is useful to whatever people think is useful. Of course, Protagoras could respond to Plato this way: "What is useful if not useful to some particular individual, at some particular place and time? What sense is there in talking about 'useful in general'? Useful always means useful for the specific purposes and desires of an individual. And even for individuals, what is useful changes." Protagoras's claim that "each one of us is the measure," because truth is a matter of perception, is dramatically and tragically illustrated in the case of Vikki Hensley, who is twenty-three years old in this photo. Because Hensley began her radical diet before she reached puberty, her body remains that of a twelve-year-old child. In today's fat obsessed world, anorexics see themselves as obese no matter how thin they are and, in the most extreme cases, would rather die than become obese. Do you think our culture suffers from a kind of collective anorexia nervosa, and, if so, does that mean that the individual, not the doctor or scientist, is the measure of health? Are widespread concerns about nutrition, weight, and appearance "reasonable" or just present-day trends and preferences? Jenny Goodall/Newscom In a speech Plato attributes to Protagoras, the Sophist makes his case that wisdom is what works: For I maintain that the truth is as I have written; each one of us is the measure of the things that are and those that are not; but each person differs immeasurably from every other in just this, that to one person some things appear and are, and to another person other things . . . do not lay too much stress upon the words of my argument, but get a clearer understanding of my meaning from what I am going to say. Recall to your mind what was said before, that his food appears and is bitter to the sick man, but appears and is the opposite of bitter to the man in health. Now neither of these two is to be made wiser than he is—that is not possible—nor should the claim be made that the sick man is ignorant because his opinions are ignorant, or the healthy man wise because his opinions are different; but a change must be made from the one condition to the other, for the other is better. So, too, in education a change has to be made from a worse condition to a better condition; but the physician causes the change by means of drugs, and the teacher of wisdom by means of words. ... And on the same principle the teacher who is able to train his pupils in this manner is not only wise but is also entitled to receive high pay from them when their education is finished. And in this sense it is true that some men are wiser than others, and that no one thinks falsely, and that you, whether you will or no, must . . . be a measure. Upon these positions my doctrine stands firm. Philosophical Query Analyze Protagoras's speech. Has he convinced you? Explain. See if you can identify the trick used by both Protagoras and his pupil in the Wager (see the "Protagoras's Wager" box). It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always valueless. — Oscar Wilde Protagoras was a rather tame Sophist. He reasoned that the most intelligent thing to do is to accept the customs and beliefs of your own community. By understanding that the mores of the community are not universal absolutes, you will develop a relaxed, effective attitude about them. This in turn will allow you to use them rather than be controlled by them. Openly flouting convention is most likely to be counterproductive. With the rare exceptions of talented and charismatic individuals, behaving in a generally conventional way affords us the most social power. Dress the way that will get you promoted at work or get you a date at the club. Write the kind of essay your teacher wants, and you'll get a good grade; write your own creative masterpiece, and you might not. Don't attract attention when driving, and you'll most likely avoid legal complications. If you want to get elected in a conservative community, go to church and keep your hair neat and unostentatious. But what if you want to succeed in a less conservative, or even a radical, community? No matter. Simply conform to your target audience's norms and expectations because customs and norms are just that—particularized, evolving, relative patterns and social expectations. A sophisticated and effective seller of ideas, products, and political practices offers his or her audience whatever it will buy. If your present community prides itself on being unconventional or radical, then by all means conform to the role of being radical. To a sophisticated, pragmatic practitioner of sophistry, there is no contradiction here in conforming to nonconformism. Only naive true believers are lulled into thinking that their beliefs are "true" and "good" and "healthy" without qualification or context. As to the Gods I have no means of knowing that they exist or that they do not exist. — Protagoras The spirit of Protagoras is discernable in our own day among paid political consultants who teach their clients to present whatever carefully crafted persona works to further their goals: In a radical community, that persona calls out for social change and attacks "the Establishment" and the power elite—in the name of fairness and common sense. In a conservative community, the effective persona appeals to tradition, faith, and family values—in the name of fairness and common sense. In both communities, today's sophists insist that they—and they alone—represent, care about, and understand what we, the "American people," want, need, and deserve. Just like Protagoras would advise them to—if that is what works. Tradition has it that Protagoras did not always follow his own advice. The story goes that at the home of a friend, Protagoras gave a reading of one of his own treatises called On the Gods. This particular work applied the principle of relativism to religious belief, apparently holding religion to the pragmatic standard. There was no separation of church and state in Athens at this time. Failure to believe in and respect "the gods of the state" was considered a form of treason known as impiety. One of the other guests, a conservative army officer, was so offended by Protagoras's ideas that he consequently had Protagoras indicted for impiety. Protagoras was found guilty. All copies of On the Gods were confiscated and burned, and the authorities set out to confiscate Protagoras, too. Facing death or exile, he attempted to escape on a ship headed for Sicily. The ship was wrecked, and Protagoras drowned. "Protagoras's Wager" Competitiveness and boldness flourished among the Sophists as they competed for prestige and paying students. This is not surprising given their emphasis on power, winning, and relativism. Moreover, because the Sophists chose to be public figures, seeking fame and influence, they were always eager to show off their abilities. They used their speaking skills to attack one another and attract students. Whenever possible, they spoke to large audiences, whether in the Assembly or in the public square. The average Athenian found these sparring matches entertaining at first. As you will learn, however, Athenians soon regarded the Sophists as disturbing and dangerous. A famous example of sophistic sparring is the story known as Protagoras's Wager. It seems that Protagoras had a pupil named Eulathus, who arranged to take Protagoras's course in rhetoric and sophistry, a kind of law school, for partial tuition. So sure was Protagoras of his abilities as a teacher that he told Eulathus he did not have to pay the balance until Eulathus won his first court case. In fact, Protagoras guaranteed that Eulathus would win his first case. Time dragged on, and Eulathus neither paid up nor argued any cases in court. Not only was Protagoras out the money, he looked bad to his students and to other Sophists. After all, if winning is what counts, and if appearance is reality, and if the pupil can outmaneuver the old master, why should anyone continue to pay his high fees? Protagoras was compelled to act. Confronting Eulathus (probably in a public place where he could use his crowd-pleasing skills), Protagoras demanded payment in the form of this dilemma: "Eulathus, you might as well pay me, since I am going to sue you for the rest of the tuition. If I win in court, the court will rule that you owe me the money; if I lose in court, you will have won your first case, and you will owe me the money. Either I win in court or I lose, so either you owe me the money or you owe me the money." Protagoras, alas, was a good teacher, and Eulathus was ready for him. He shot back with a counterdilemma: "No, sir, you have it backwards. If you defeat me in court, then I have lost my first case and so do not owe the money; if I defeat you, the court will rule that I do not owe you the money. Either I defeat you or you defeat me. In either case, I do not owe you the money." Who won? The story does not tell us. And besides, Sophists being what they were, neither Eulathus nor Protagoras would have wanted to lose big in a highly publicized trial. Protagoras's Wager gives us an instructive glimpse of sophistry in action. Such encounters were common, as Sophists vied for students and reputation. To the general citizenry, these encounters were sometimes amusing entertainment. Men like Protagoras lived rather mild lives considering what they taught and the reactions their excitable pupils had to their ideas. But when the same kinds of tricks were used for high stakes—say, to convict innocent citizens, to control democracy, to wrest property away from people—no one laughed. Sophistry's reputation grew darker.