Plato's Gorgias: There Really Are No Ethical Responsibilities in Oratory

After reading Plato's Gorgias, I was left to wonder if Socrates had any friends. I understand that he was a greatly regarded man; he was educated, well spoken, and surely charming. But he talked a lot and over-analyzed everything that was presented to him. I'm uncertain how many people look upon this as a quality. To his credit, Socrates is one of very few men that were ever able to challenge people in such a way that their entire belief system was shaken to the core. This characteristic is well apparent in Gorgias, where Plato portrays Socrates trying to understand the art of oratory from the perspective of its teachers all the while he has his own agenda. Socrates' conversations with Gorgias, Polus and Callicles resonate with his belief that oratory is taught and performed without any respect to ethical responsibility. In turn, each of the three conversations served as Socrates' demonstrations of the dishonorable aspects of this art, and, more importantly, the demonstrations of the dishonorable behavior and no acceptance of responsibility of those who thought and practiced oratory.

At the start of his conversation with Gorgias, Socrates displayed his willingness to learn about oratory from the best teacher and practitioner of the art. Gorgias presented his art as the "ability to convince by means of speech" (28). He elaborated that this conviction which arises from oratory is such that provides the audiences with a belief, rather then knowledge on a particular subject (32-33). Considering the power of persuasion which is encompassed by oratory, it is difficult not to think of all the damage someone with these skills can create. So who is responsible for putting oratory to good use? As a teacher of oratory, one would think that it was Gorgias' responsibility to educate his students on the use of their skills. However, Gorgias disagreed with this and claimed that "the fault rests with those who do not make a proper use of [oratory]" (35). If the conversation between Socrates and Gorgias stopped here, we might even be inclined to agree with Gorgias and wonder how we could have ever thought of pointing our finger in blame to the teacher of a bad student. Socrates, however, knew better, and questioned Gorgias on the type of knowledge that he requires his students to possess. If the student doesn't have "popular reputation for knowledge and goodness", Gorgias is then responsible for educating that student on the concepts of right and wrong (39). That brought Socrates to the inconsistency he was waiting for - if Gorgias only educated his students to use oratory to do right, there would not be any orators who used the art to persuade others to do wrong. Thus, it becomes clear that Gorgias (mis)used his skills to persuade Socrates into believing that he was not responsible for teaching anything other then the art of oratory, and especially not responsible for his students wrongdoings. In other words, he attempted to avoid responsibility of teaching right and wrong to his students, when in fact, some circumstances called for Gorgias to do so. So much for righteous convictions.

Polus stepped up to the plate, and as his first order of business admitted that he was not at all pleased with the turn the conversation between Gorgias and Socrates had taken. To save face, Polus decided to turn the conversation around and be the one that is seeking answers from Socrates on the art of oratory. Socrates didn't hesitate with his answer; he proposed that oratory is not an art, but rather "sort of a knack, producing a kind of gratification and pleasure" (43). There were two main problems with oratory, as Socrates perceived: first, oratory was more concerned with gratification then good, and second, oratory was often confused with lecturing, which, in fact, sought conviction based on knowledge and not belief (46-47). This brought the discussion between Polus and Socrates to deeds done from will and from pleasure. Socrates argued that every man that commits a wrongful act out of pleasure is "more miserable if he does not pay the penalty and suffer punishment for his crimes, and less miserable is he does pay the penalty and suffer punishment in this world or next" (59). Polus, however, maintains the opposite is true, stating that no man would rather suffer wrong then do wrong (62). To illustrate his point, Socrates explains that when a man is being punished, we consider justice, as identified with good, to be served upon the man, which in turn cures his ill soul. If a man tries to escape punishment after wrong doing, he will go on being miserable as no good (justice) is being inflicted upon him (63-70). Oratory then, according to Socrates, is only necessary for the man who is trying to "make [himself] as persuasive speaker as he can" in order to avoid punishment (71). In opposition, the real use for oratory, proposed by Socrates, would be to ensure that wrongdoings are brought to light, and not concealed (73). By accepting this argument, Polus inadvertently admitted that art of oratory is not only the art of conviction, but deception as well. If the orator is practicing his art in order to persuade people into believing something he knows is wrong, then he is performing a wrongful act. It seems to be that Polus had learned a lot from Gorgias, even his sense of self-contradiction.

A conversation involving Socrates would not be complete if philosophy was left out entirely. Enter Callicles, a democrat in his own right, who claimed that Socrates' method of conversation, the way that he interchangeably used convention and nature to define terms, was a dishonest way to win an argument over Gorgias and Polus. In addition, Callicles rather freely expressed his opposition to philosophy and indicated Socrates' practice of such notions does not make him a "real man" (81). Now, did we all just hear a man attacking two things Socrates most values - truth and philosophy? Of course, this is only another challenge for Socrates, who is convinced that if he can get Callicles to agree with him, they "will have there the actual truth" (83). What begun as a war of words, definitions of terminology and nature of language, unfolded into a discussion about men, the wants, needs, superiorities, and responsibilities of functional members of society. The art of oratory and its use in the political system dominated the conversation, as Socrates proposed that there were two forms of political oratory, pandering and good (110). According to Socrates, these mimic the two ways in which one can treat body and soul, by taking any actions from pleasure or by thinking of others best interest. This last principle, he claims, should be applied in politics in order to "make the citizens themselves as good as possible" (126). Although Callicles agreed to this, he was unable to provide any response to Socrates when he questioned whether any man had become better on Callicles' account (128). Socrates then demonstrated that, if applying the above principles, there is not one good politician in Athens, past or present, that meets the criteria on which Callicles and him have agreed upon (129-132). What exactly does this say about Callicles? It appears that he is a man more concerned with pleasure then good, involved in pandering, which was previously determined to be the wrongful use of oratory. Ultimately, the sense of responsibility for the citizens of Athens comes second to Callicles; first, of course, is the high of his political career.

To use a phrase "righteous orator" would be the same as using the words "honest" and "lawyer" or "politician" in the same sentence today. Socrates knew that he would be able to demonstrate that dishonest behavior not only exists but dominates in those who teach and practice oratory. They challenge was to get the men involved in this art to admit to the lack of their responsibility. The results of each of the three conversations are not to be looked at simply for the argument sake; each provides insight into the character of the man involved. It is important to note that each man entered the conversation with Socrates in order to justify his own use of oratory. Overall, if this was in fact an art concerned with good, and if its practice was able to influence any man, the outcome of each conversation would have shown Socrates as the more inadequate party.