Wolgin 1 Jonathan Wolgin Matthew Evans Phil 405: Platos Foes March 23, 2012 Relatively Inconsistent: Platos

Protagoras The picture of Protagoras that Socrates gives us in the Theaetetus might seem to conflict with that in the Protagoras. In the former, he is depicted as some sort of relativist. In the latter, however, he can come across as an objectivist about morality. I will argue that these two portraits of Protagoras are not inconsistent with each other, but rather the portrait of him that we get in each account is inconsistent. Protagoras is famous for holding the Measure Doctrine, the idea that persons are the measure of all things. Socrates says, He puts it something like this, that as each thing appears to me, so it is for me, and as it appears to you, so it is for you. . .This expression it appears means he perceives it. (Theaetetus 152a-b). So, for example, if I feel that the pool is cold, having just come from the jacuzzi, then the pool is cold for me. But for you the pool may be warm. In these sorts of cases, then, what is true for me may not be true for you, because we may have different senseperceptions. Lets call this first interpretation of the Measure Doctrine the Narrow Interpretation, since it only relativizes truths based on sense-perceptions. But not all of our beliefs are perceptual in nature. We may have beliefs about things that we have never perceived with our sensory organs, such as (arguably) other peoples thoughts, causal connections between events, principles of morality, and future events. According to the Broad Interpretation of the Measure Doctrine,

Wolgin 2 all of your beliefs about these things also are true for you. For example, iff a person believes that there are fairies, then it is true for him that there are fairies. On this account, moral truths must also be relativized to each individual. Its true for a person that stealing is wrong just in case he believes that stealing is wrong, for instance. If Protagoras accepts the Broad Interpretation of the Measure Doctrine, then he cannot sincerely claim to be a Moral Objectivist. However, I do not think he is committed to the Broad Interpretation. Also, I will argue that it is not clear that he even claims to be a Moral Objectivist. I believe Socrates commits a sort of ignoratio elenchi by attacking Protagoras for a view he isnt committed to, namely the Broad Interpretation. Socrates says, Well suppose you come to a decision in your own mind and then express a judgment about something to me. Let us assume with Protagoras that your judgment is true for you. But isnt it possible that the rest of us may criticize your verdict. (170c-d) Here Socrates is trying to show that the Broad Interpretation of the Measure Doctrine is self-refuting. But even if this argument worked, it would not catch Protagoras in a contradiction. To do that, Socrates would have to show that the Narrow Interpretation entails the Broad one, and the Broad one is self-refuting. As far as I am aware, the historical Protagoras never claims that all of our judgments are true for us including those about the future and about others beliefs. So I think Socrates argument that we cannot perfectly predict the future is also wrongly targeted at Protagoras. However, at the end of these attacks, Socrates admits that he was making a sort of ignoratio elenchi. He concedes that, So long as we keep within the limits of that immediate present experience of the individual

Wolgin 3 which gives rise to perceptions and to perceptual judgments, it is more difficult to convict these latter of being untrue. Perhaps it is not possible to convict them at all. (179c) So the Narrow Interpretation, which Protagoras most likely held, has not been refuted. And as long as Protagoras only relativizes perceptual truths and not all truths, he can consistently claim to be a Moral Objectivist. For our purposes, an Objectivist will be someone who thinks some actions are wrong even though the agent or society might think theyre right. We dont know if the historical Protagoras was an Objectivist, but I will argue that we also dont know if Platos Protagoras was an Objectivist. He says things that can be interpreted as egoism, social contract theory, or fictionalism. Supporting the egoist interpretation is the following quote, The man whom I call wise is the man who can change the appearancesthe man who in any case where bad things both appear and are for one of us, works a change and makes good things appear and be for him. (166d) If we take the words for him to refer to the man making the change, then Protagoras thinks that having wisdom consists in being able to make your life go better. Real wisdom is practical wisdom on this view. Also, in the Protagoras he seems to suggest that fools are conventionally just. Protagoras: Many are courageous but unjust, and many again are just but not wise. Socrates: Then these are also parts of virtuewisdom and courage? Protagoras: Absolutely, and wisdom is the greatest part. (329e-330a)

Wolgin 4 I think he implies here that one can be wise without always being conventionally just (respectful, compassionate, etc.) This seems to make him an Egoist, someone who thinks its most rational to make ones life go best, perhaps at the expense of others. Egoism here is a form of Moral Objectivism. Protagoras would also be an Objectivist if he accepted some form of social contract theory. As many social contract theorists do, Protagoras tells a story about the origin of our sense of justice. The reason why we all have a sense of justice is because Zeus gave it to us, since didnt want us to get eaten and destroyed by the other animals. Only our sense of justice enabled us to cooperate and develop cities effectively. But does the fact that we all (besides psychopaths) have this sense of conventional justice ground moral facts objectively? Im not sure, and Protagoras does not argue this point. In any case, Protagoras believes that, It is to our collective advantage that we each possess justice and virtue, and so we all gladly tell and teach each other what is just and lawful. (Protagoras 327b) The first part of the sentence is consistent with social contract theory, however the second is also consistent with fictionalism. Fictionalism is the idea that moral claims are not literally true, but merely useful fictions. With this view in mind, we can interpret Protagoras as telling a story he knows is merely a myth. The fictionalist interpretation of him is also supported by his argument that people will laugh or get angry at those who pretend to be experts at flute-playing or medicine, but [people] will say that everyone ought to claim to be just, whether they are or not, and that it is madness not to pretend to justice, since one must have some trace of it or not be human. (Protagoras 323c)

Wolgin 5 Thus we have seen that it is unclear which view of morality Protagoras subscribes to. He may be a social contract theorist, egoist or error theorist. But whichever view it is, it does not conflict with his relativism about sense-perceptions. (1200 words)