This reflection accompanied a recent introduction to Western philosophers and speaks to several current crises:

The Socratic method causes what was known in ancient Greece as aporia: “Such an examination challenged the implicit moral beliefs of the interlocutors, bringing out inadequacies and inconsistencies in their beliefs, and usually resulting in puzzlement known as aporia. In view of such inadequacies, Socrates himself professed his ignorance…” (“The Socratic Method”).

Ambiguity or indeterminacy can be difficult to sustain since we all enjoy the comfort of certainty or a preferred theory or two. But to keep pace with the demands of change, we have to engage in open-ended dialectic: “Instead of arriving at answers, the method was used to break down the theories we hold, to go ’beyond’ the axioms and postulates we take for granted” (“The Socratic Method”). Socrates did not use the method that bears his name to develop new and consistent theories. The use of dialectical argumentation and the development of various intellectual skills, rather than preconceived theory, equip us to address (“from the ground up”) the pressing global and local issues we face.

Some countries or factions, such as terrorists, are opposed to globalization, international law, human rights, critical thinking, and/or cultural diversity. They wish to sabotage the tenuous progress we have made in establishing order, peace, and protection of rights, even life itself. They obviously cannot be allowed to disrupt the efforts of the rest of the international community; legitimate grievances should be presented in a forum that serves to address excesses and dubious directions of the global community. Terrorism or coercion does not bring about needed change; it only arouses fear and mobilizes the victims to retaliate, if they can, and it often results in the displacement of the survivors and creates an economic and social burden on the world at large. Most important of all, it causes terrible suffering and loss of life.

But terrorists and rogue nations are not our only grave concern. Some industries and transnational corporations do not consider the health and well-being of people and ecosystems. They often prefer to pay fines for infractions of environmental law rather than curb their excesses, thereby demonstrating that people and other affected species are less important than their profit margin. That does not mean, of course, that all people who work for them are unethical, and some individuals even become whistleblowers to correct abuses. Corporate disregard for life, health, and well-being is obviously unethical. The laws governing protection of the whole environment—the flourishing of biodiversity and human cultures, the health and safety of all species and habitats—should be strengthened, just as we must facilitate the consistent enforcement of other international laws. Financial incentives and awards to corporations can encourage responsible policies and practices in business and industry; increasing penalties for violations of existing laws could also curb unethical corporate conduct.

Greater international regulation will require something that both social contract theory and utilitarianism espouse—a measure of self-sacrifice. Each nation has to give up some degree of sovereignty or self-interest in order for international law to be consistently enforced. Entirely too much effort and too many resources are expended trying to repair the harm done by preventable environmental disasters and assisting people who have been attacked or violated. If there were consistent accountability in the world, with sure and swift penalties or responses from the international community, there would be fewer atrocities and preventable catastrophes. We could then focus more of our efforts and resources on finding solutions to climate change, disease, and the depletion of non-renewable energy sources. The constant disruptions caused by violence and self-serving excesses drain the human potential for finding solutions to other urgent planetary issues.

E.K. Tillar

Source: “The Socratic Method,” The University of Chicago/The Law School, 2 November 2023 https://www.law.uchicago.edu/socratic-method.