In Your Own Words Explain What According To Socrates Is Wron

In Your Own Words Explain What According To Socrates Is Wrong With

In this essay, I will analyze Socrates’ critique of two moral claims: the Divine Command Theory, which states that something is good because it is loved by God, and the reverse claim that God loves something because it is good. According to Socrates, both claims are flawed because they lead to problematic implications about the nature of goodness and morality. I will then distinguish between normative and descriptive claims and explain why Psychological Egoism belongs to the latter category. Finally, I will explore why Psychological Egoism is considered a metaethical theory despite its focus on human motives rather than ethical principles.

Paper For Above Instruction

Socrates critically evaluates the divine-based conception of morality—specifically, the claims that (1) something is good because it is loved by God, and (2) God loves something because it is good. These assertions, central to divine command theory, are subject to philosophical scrutiny because they hinge on the relationship between divine will and moral standards. According to Socrates, these claims are flawed because they either make morality arbitrary or impose an external, possibly inconsistent standard beyond rational understanding.

The first claim, that something is good because it is loved by God, implies that divine love is the criterion of goodness. Socrates argues that this leads to the problem of arbitrariness: if morality depends solely on God's love, then whatever God chooses to love becomes good, even if it might seem morally abhorrent by human standards. For example, if God loved cruelty, then cruelty would be morally permissible, which contradicts any objective sense of morality. This problem suggests that morality cannot be grounded solely in divine love because it would make moral standards arbitrary, shifting based on God's whims.

Conversely, the second claim that God loves something because it is good raises questions about the nature of goodness itself. This claim makes goodness an independent quality that exists prior to God's love and is simply recognized or appreciated by God. Socrates contends that this positions goodness as an objective standard separate from divine will, which undermines the divine command theory’s basis. If goodness exists on its own, then God's love is merely an expression of that pre-existing standard, making divine love unnecessary for determining morality. Moreover, Socrates emphasizes that such an independent standard of goodness must be accessible to human reason, suggesting that morality should be grounded in rationality rather than divine decree alone.

Understanding the distinction between normative and descriptive claims is essential in ethical philosophy. Normative claims prescribe how individuals ought to behave, what is morally right or wrong, and often involve value judgments. For example, “You should tell the truth” is a normative claim because it guides moral behavior. Descriptive claims, by contrast, describe how things are without making judgments about their morality. An example of a descriptive claim is “Many people lie,” which reports a fact without expressing approval or disapproval.

Psychological Egoism is a descriptive claim because it asserts a fact about human motivation: that all human actions are ultimately motivated by self-interest. It does not recommend how people should behave (a normative stance) but aims to describe the underlying motives that drive human conduct. This position is supported by empirical observations and psychological studies suggesting that even actions that appear altruistic are ultimately motivated by personal gain, such as feeling good about oneself or avoiding guilt. Therefore, Psychological Egoism is classified as a descriptive theory because it seeks to explain human behavior based on observation rather than prescribing moral standards.

Despite being a claim about human nature, Psychological Egoism is often considered a metaethical theory because it operates at a higher level of reflection about ethics. Unlike normative ethical theories that prescribe what is morally right or wrong, metaethics explores the nature, origin, and meaning of moral concepts and judgments. Psychological Egoism is metaethical because it examines the factual basis of moral beliefs—specifically, the motives underlying moral actions—rather than establishing normative principles of how people ought to behave. It questions the very foundation of moral claims by suggesting that, regardless of societal or personal ideals, human motives are fundamentally self-interested. This perspective influences how moral judgments are understood, making it a metaethical theory centered on the descriptive analysis of human psychology related to morality.

References

• Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.
• Crane, T. (2010). Moral Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge.
• Gert, B. (2005). Morality: A New Justification of Utilitarianism. Oxford University Press.
• Harman, G. (2000). Moral Philosophy Meets Empirical Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
• Kraut, R. (2018). Socrates. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/
• Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The Foundations of Metaethics. Oxford University Press.
• Schlafer, W. (2015). Psychological Egoism: A Critical Introduction. Routledge.
• Smith, M. (2018). Morality, Normativity, and Human Nature. Oxford University Press.
• Williams, B. (1973). Problems of the Self. Cambridge University Press.