The general sense among many students, especially those born and raised in the West, is that the
Socratic questions have already been answered: good is whatevergives you pleasure, as long as you
do not harm others. If you point out to students that such a position asserts universal values about
what is good (good is pleasure, good is not harming others), most do not seem bothered. As Myers
argues, professors today are faced with a“compound skepticism”: if professors criticize their
students’relativism (“Nazis are bad, so surely you would condemn what they did?”), the students
revert to their principles of“no harm”and“seek pleasure”(“The Nazis harmed others, so do not
harm in your pursuit of pleasure”); if professors criticize their students’hedonism (“Some pleasures
are bad for you”), the students revert back to relativism (“You do not have the right to criticize what
other people find pleasurable, even if inyour opinionit is bad for them”).^23 The point of university,
in such students’minds, is to get skills, in order to get a job, make money, buy what gives you
pleasure, and contribute to an economy that gives people access to these multiple pleasures. The
job-seeking mentality and hedonistic relativism are thus mutually reinforcing.
A number of arguments can be employed in a Socratic classroom with Relativists. A few
examples: 1) if you state categorically“All truth is relative,”then you have contradicted yourself
because you have just asserted an objective truth that is not relative; 2) if you say without quali-
fication“Do not judge others”you have contradicted yourself again because you are judging those
who judge; 3) if you say“All values are relative,”then you cannot criticize or condemn any act,
even an atrocity or sadistic crime; 4) if you say,“You must be tolerant of everyone,”then that means
tolerating those who are intolerant, which is self-defeating; 5) if you say“I do not have the right to
criticize anyone else for what they believe, say, or do,”then that means no one has the right to
criticizeyoufor what you believe, say, or do, which is self-defensive; 6) and lastly, relativism
implies that we are all locked within our own absolutist worldviews, and hence no one is truly open
to persuasion or considering other ways of thinking that might be better, leading to solipsism.
Rather than using these arguments to reprimand students for their shallowness, they can be stated
in a manner that is patient, friendly, and open. Rhodes advises professors to concede the“legitimacy
of relativism provisionally”with her students, and then start the“philosophic enterprise of careful,
open-minded inquiry from scratch with every student who responds.”Because students’relativism
is“received rather than systematically deduced,”and thus“soft rather than hard,”it is possible, with
the right approach, to get students excited about reconsidering their own relativism.^24 A similar
approach can be taken with regard to students’unreflective hedonism, in which happiness is
reduced to pleasure. A professor can provisionally concede this position, and even point out that
some philosophers have thought this. However, she can get students to recognize a difference
between pleasure and happiness, perhaps by demonstrating that not all people in the throes of
pleasure (i.e., drug addicts) are necessarily“happy.”A better term for“happiness”might be
“flourishing,”in the Aristotelean sense ofeudaimonia, which is an activity, not just a feeling. To
flourish, a person must do things that are not always immediately pleasurable (i.e., the pain of
physical exercise, the arduousness of intellectual inquiry). If students insist on identifying hap-
piness with pleasure (i.e.,“A philosopher is happy because he finds philosophy pleasurable”), then
the discussion can turn to higher and lower pleasures. This, in turn, leads to questions about the
good life, human excellence, and so on.
There is no guarantee that these strategies will persuade, but headway can be made with at least
some students if the arguments are targeted and the environment is right.
The Safe Space Mentality and Identity Politics
In recent years, university campuses have been rocked by student demands to be shielded from
ideas, texts, or images that are potentially offensive, traumatizing, or just different, particularly
those bearing on race, gender, sexuality, and identity, or dealing with sensitive topics such as
abortion, Israel, Islam, animal welfare, and climate change. Hence, we see the recent demand by
The Socratic Method in Today’s University 143