Hmm. The Platonic Socrates (ie, the Socrates we know as the character in Plato’s dialogues) was the ultimate absolutist. That’s what his Theory of the Forms was about: Every value has an unchanging and absolute form out there that we approximate. None of that contextual nonsense.

But Socrates the person might have been (we know very little about him) a lot more “situational”. There were two anti-democratic revolutions (ie, brief dictatorships) in Athens during his time, which became crucial as the backdrop to his trial, and his behavior was, well, remarkably adaptable, shall we say.

Libertarians: The Platonic Socrates had no room for them. Free thinking, yes, but only for the “Philosopher Kings”. The rest of the population had to know its place, as in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

So you see that Yogi Berra had a leg up on Socrates: “In theory there’s no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.” In theory, Socrates was an absolutist, in practice he might have been a wee bit situational here and there. In theory, Socrates was a free-thinking libertarian; in practice, his ideas would have led to the end of liberty.

All of which is YET ANOTHER reason to study the man and to understand his relevance to us today.

From what you say, Socrates would have been a moral absolutist. So, had he been a ruler (not the measuring kind) he would therefore have been a despot, for, as a moral absolutist, he wouldn’t have tolerated the compromises so necessary for a democracy.

And, as a despot, would not Socrates have dealt harshly with Libertarians, such as you?

Impressive to be sure, considering his circumstances: surrounded by the polis in all its group individualism, having little tolerance for dissenting opinion.

His accusers remind me of some of America’s finest liberaldemocrats today championing the liberal agenda while trashing individual thought.

That’s one reason I am a Libertarian. Hooray for Socrates.

Me too. I see also that the greater, or ultimate truth of anything, lies usually near the middle of two opposing extremes. Also that the morality of an action, whether conforming, non-conforming, killing, stealing, lying, or anything else, should be judged in the light of its circumstances – in terms of situational ethics.

Was Socrates a situational ethicist?

Re “they were being biological organisms that keep in mind” – that is a crucial point – we are creatures of habit and have the habits of creatures baked into us. One refinement, we humans often make decisions without the intervention of out concious deliberative minds. We frequently behave instinctively (from out creaturely habits).

Re the influence of non-concious and clearly illogical factors in human behavior – my favorite example is the “Eyes of Honesty”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10section1C.t-3.html
To summarize the presence of a poster showing a person watching you can substantially change behavior – even though everyone consciously knows the eyes are 2 dimensional.

Re – social pressure – its not all bleak – you could think of socially normative pressures as being like any other tool – can be used for good or bad. As Sunstein writes about in Nudge – you can use herd instincts to encourage people to choose behaviors that support social good. And lets not forget he and his fellow behavioral economists are deep in the Obama administration.

Finally re “larger truths” – I think that could just mean more useful goals, not necessarily truer ones.