Overcome by Pleasure: Socrates, Hedonism, and the Impossibility of Moral Weakness

Through Plato's dialogue, Protagoras, the reader explores the topic of virtue and its teachability in the debate between the Philosopher Socrates and the Sophist Protagoras. Although this work is most well known for its focus on virtue, an important, yet often overlooked message is Socrates' fundamental rejection of "the many" in their belief of "being overcome by pleasure." Employing the vehicle of hedonism, Socrates categorizes pleasure and pain as good and bad to explain how it is logically impossible to do something bad while recognizing it as bad. Socrates explains that choosing immediate pleasure which results in future pain, is a grave miscalculation stemming from a lack of knowledge. Through critically evaluating the passage (354E-355E), this essay will analyze Socrates' reasoning, explain important context, reconstruct his arguments and evaluate their validity.

In Ancient Greece at the time of Plato's writing, Sophists were self-proclaimed teachers of virtue, employing their mastery of persuasion and rhetoric to educate the children of wealthy Athenians seeking a political career. However, Philosophers often condemned Sophists because they practiced persuasion, avoiding the truth.

Plato's Protagoras begins with Hippocrates, an ambitious Athenian, expressing his desire to study under a prominent Sophist, Protagoras. Despite being skeptical of Sophists, Socrates is excited by the opportunity to speak with an alleged teacher of virtue and decides to accompany Hippocrates to speak with Protagoras. Although this dialogue between Socrates and Protagoras ends in aporia, much is learned about what virtue is and isn't, and if it can truly be taught. During this discussion, Socrates mentions the hedonistic principle – the idea that pleasure is the good and pain is the bad – providing a framework for him to claim that moral failure is a result of miscalculations in judgment with pleasure and pain.

Socrates deems the notion that one can willingly do something 'bad' as a result of being "overcome by pleasure" as logically absurd. Instead, Socrates refers to hedonism, explaining that pleasure is the sole criterion for good, and pain is the sole criterion for bad. While Socrates does not explicitly label humans as inherently rational beings, he is implicitly assuming that every decision one makes is to achieve maximum pleasure and minimal pain. Socrates argues that knowingly doing something that is "bad" for "pleasure" is logically contradictory, as pleasure and good are interchangeable terms: "we are no longer able to say 'by pleasure' — for it has taken on its other name, 'the good'" (Protagoras 355C). Socrates explains that when someone has chosen immediate pleasure which leads to greater overall pain, they have not been "overcome," instead, they have miscalculated the consequences of their actions. Similarly, in Plato's dialogue Meno, Socrates reinforces this stance by suggesting wrongdoing results from ignorance rather than intentional moral choice (Meno 77B - 78B). Ultimately, Socrates explains that moral mistakes arise from poor decisions regarding immediate and future pleasures, rather than the genuine akrasia.

Although I agree with certain facets of Socrates' argument – such as individuals seeking pleasure by acting in their best interests, I have identified several flaws when applying this rationale to our highly complex species. The foundation of Socrates' argument lies within hedonism, a perspective that is inadequate and overly simplistic. Equating pleasure with the good is problematic as it overlooks all the subjective and contextual factors that influence moral evaluation. For instance, most would agree that an auxiliary in Plato's Republic is 'good' because they protect the state against its enemies. However, do all auxiliaries derive 'pleasure' from their role? While Socrates may argue that pleasure is also the satisfaction from courage and honor, it does not account for individuals who act morally, out of obligation, despite lacking any pleasure received. Additionally, pleasure itself is impossible to universally measure due to its highly subjective nature, rendering it impossible to categorize actions as just 'good' or 'bad.' For example, person A may derive extreme pleasure from gambling while person B experiences extreme pain from the same activity. The subjectivity of pleasure and pain raises the question of whether Socrates' perception of pleasure applies individually or universally. Ultimately, I agree with Socrates that humans often seek pleasure, defining goodness exclusively as pleasure is inadequate.

Another core argument Socrates makes is that bad decisions stem from miscalculations of pleasure and pain, rather than other factors such as weakness of will or irrational impulses. This assumption overlooks the complex processes behind human decision making, suggesting decision making always results from rational calculations between pleasure and pain. However, in reality, humans often act irrationally due to countless factors such as emotional impulses or addiction, components Socrates' models fail to incorporate.

With contemporary society being dominated by instant gratification, Socrates' debate with Protagoras remains extremely relevant. As we progress more in this technological era, it seems this trend will only exacerbate – where impulsive decision-making chasing short-term rewards becomes increasingly more prevalent. Socrates' rejection of akrasia challenges conventional notions of self-control, raising important questions about human behavior that continue to resonate today. Although the argument that moral failure stems from ignorance is an interesting framework for contemplating rational thinking, it ultimately oversimplifies the complexity of human nature. Socrates correctly identifies that humans pursue what they believe as good, his overreliance on hedonistic principles fails to account for emotional impulses, moral obligations, and psychological factors that deter rational thought.

Ultimately, Socrates' rebuttal of akrasia is very thought provoking, however, his argument is left incomplete. The modern world is overflowing with people making irrational, impulsive, and self destructive choices, demonstrating the limitations of a knowledge-based model of morality. The insights provided from thousands of years ago are still relevant today, however, Socrates' account of human behavior is far too rigid to encompass the complexities of moral failure in both ancient Athens and in contemporary society.