Caitlyn Patey
PHIL 1304
Pritchard’s Dilemma describes the inability to answer the question, “why be moral?”
This question addresses the issue of moral motivation, and it is Plato’s task to prove that
this question can and will be answered in a way that successfully defines and provides
reasoning for morality. First, I will describe Pritchard’s Dilemma and then connect it to the
general equation of the dilemma. Then I will start to describe and analyze Plato’s response
to the question. I will start by discussing the three types of good, Plato’s version of morality,
and the three parts of the soul. I will finish describing his response with the analysis of why
morality is a type two good. I will be making the argument that Plato’s response is
successful in answering Pritchard’s Dilemma but that I disagree with Plato’s concept of
morality.
Pritchard’s Dilemma is the idea that there is no right answer to the question “why be
moral?” There are only two answers, moral and immoral. However, when trying to define
morality, it is virtually impossible to not include the word morality in the definition when
trying to give a moral answer. Because of this inaccuracy, it becomes redundant and does
not properly define the term of answer the question, “why be moral?” At the same time, an
immoral person would answer in a way that is related to self-interest. It will create two
consequences. Firstly, a moral person would not agree with this immoral answer because it
goes against their character and sense of being. Also, it gives the impression that selfinterest is actually moral, which goes against the original assumption that self-interest is
immoral in nature. This gives the result of a stalemate because there are no other answers,
and neither of these answers is sufficient, which leads to the conclusion that there is no
way to answer the question, “why be moral?” I do not think the question can be answered
with an immoral thought because that would defeat the purpose of being moral, and I don’t
believe it can be defined with a moral answer either because I believe it would start an
endless cycle of defining morality. This leads me to the same conclusion as Pritchard.
The general equation of a dilemma consists of two premises and a conclusion. The
first premise is “if p, then r.” It’s similar to the second premise, which is “if q, then r.” Both
of these lead to the conclusion, “either p or q, then r.” Using this general equation, one can
apply it to Pritchard’s Dilemma. In this sense, “p” is giving a moral answer to the question,
while “q” is giving an immoral answer. Both of these premises lead to the result, “r”, there is
no answer to the question. This leaves a limited number of ways in which one can respond
to this dilemma. The first option is to deny the conclusion that there are no possible
answers to the question. This means making the assumption that there are reasons for
being moral that are neither moral nor self-interested, or immoral. This strategy of
answering is called “escaping the horns of the dilemma.” The other option is denying one of
the two premises, which is called “taking the dilemma by its horns.”
Plato attempts to answer this question by making morality out to be a type two
good. There are three types of good. The first type is intrinsically good, or good for the sake
of being good. The second type is good for one’s own sake and the consequences that result
because of being good. The third type of good is being good solely for the consequences
that being good provides. Plato is trying to prove through Socrates that morality is good for
one’s own sake as well as the consequences that arise because of it. I believe morality is
perceived to be a type three good. By that, I mean that I think people use morality solely for
its consequences. It is unfortunate, but I think most people are selfish, and they use that
selfishness as their reasoning for doing good.
In order to answer this question, Plato must give a self-interested reason, thereby
denying the second premise. Glaucon suggested the main motives for self-interest are sex,
power, and prestige (359b/c)1. However, Plato aims to portray a different kind of selfinterest. He proposes a new type of morality, also known as P-morality, Plato morality. His
version of morality is different than the other kinds of morality that have been proposed
before him. This morality will be referred to as O-morality, or ordinary morality. While Pmorality is very different from O-morality, it cannot be too different. If it was, it would be
perceived by the public as not moral at all but rather immoral in its very essence, and it
would be rejected. Therefore, the new definition of morality must correspond to the old
one or be similar enough that the general public will revise their own definitions of
morality without rejecting the new conclusion.
According to Plato, there are three parts of the soul. The reason there are three
parts is because of the principle of conflict. This principle states that one thing cannot act
1
Plato’s Republic. Same for all further citations.
upon one thing and be acted upon simultaneously by the same thing in opposite directions.
When applying this to the concept of the soul, it can be said that conflict in the soul implies
that there are various parts of the soul. The first is desire, which is motivated by the
prominent and strongest desire in the soul. Next is reason. This part is motivated by a
person’s overall character and good. Thirdly, and finally, is the spirited part. This part is
motivated by three factors. These factors are self-preservation, the preservation of loved
ones, and one’s sense of being wronged. The connection between the three is that the
desirous and passionate, or spirited, parts can be educated by the reason part.
Plato classifies something as good if it is wise, courageous, self-disciplined, and
moral. A person is wise when the reason part of their soul is in control. One is courageous
when his or her passionate part rules, and one is self-disciplined when his or her desirous
part is kept under control. Morality is the criterion that makes the other three possible, and
as long as the other three are being done, morality will be achieved. Therefore, a person is
moral when each part of the soul does its own job. Errors with the analogy include the
process of internalization and externalization. The process of internalization is taking
cultural influences into account in the way that one acts. For example, when one learns
manners such as saying “please” and “thank you” by observation, they are taking them into
their soul unconsciously to be used at a later date in their actions. The process of
externalization is having cultural influences show when one acts outwardly. An example of
this would be showing these manners when one acts.
In order to prove that morality is a type two good, Plato must show that one can act
morally for one’s own sake. Plato does this by saying that morality works to secure
harmony in the soul, which then results in mental health, which is part of happiness. If one
is happy by acting morally, then morality is a type two good (444e). However, there is more
to that statement. Plato creates an answer based on self-interest, but it is not the same kind
of self-interest that had been spoken of before him, such as sex, power, and prestige. Plato’s
self-interest is based on psychic health, which corresponds to Pritchard’s second premise.
Plato claims that once a person develops knowledge of good, he or she will begin to
love good and will act out of love for the good. Therefore, by acting for the public good, he
or she will not be acting against his or her self-interest. Plato claims that seeing the beloved
is seeing it as beautiful and good and wanting to create offspring with it. However, this
offspring could be concrete, like children, or abstract, like ideas. These offspring are
considered good because they are created out of love for the good.
I agree that, if one truly understands the act of doing good, the results of that
understanding will be out of love for good as well as the consequences that will result. Due
to these conditions, love is seen as a motivational force for doing good. If these premises
are true, then Plato’s argument is valid because he would have concluded that self-interest
and acting for the public good cannot be separated. However, it is difficult to prove if
Plato’s argument is sound because, according to him, only philosophers can understand
true goodness. If a person is not a philosopher, they will have to depend on education to tell
them about morality; very few people understand what the moral truth is. Each person is
different, and I think very few people will ever achieve the level of good that Plato
references. I think most people should aspire to it, but it’s not a realistic thought that all, or
even most, will accomplish it. It may be difficult to prove that Plato’s argument is sound.
However, it is equally as difficult to prove that it is unsound, so one needs to make the
assumption that Plato’s argument is, in fact, sound. However, I disagree that people are
moral for its own sake. I think that even when people think they are being moral for its own
sake, they are still reaping the rewards from their moral acts, such as happiness, content,
and pride. Due to this, I believe morality is a type three good, which, in a sense, disagrees
with Plato’s entire concept.
Pritchard’s Dilemma is the idea that there is no right answer to the question “why be
moral?” There are only two answers, moral and immoral and neither successfully answers
the question. Plato attempts to by making morality out to be a type two good, one that is
good for one’s own sake as well as for the consequences. In order to answer this question,
Plato must give a self-interested reason, thereby denying the second premise of Pritchard’s
Dilemma. According to Plato, there are three parts of the soul. Plato classifies something as
good if it is wise, courageous, self-disciplined, and moral. A person is wise when the reason
part of their soul is in control. One is courageous when his or her passionate part rules, and
one is self-disciplined when his or her desirous part is kept under control. A person is
moral when each part of the soul does its own job. Plato says that morality works to secure
harmony in the soul, which then results in mental health, which is part of happiness. If one
is happy by acting morally, then morality is a type two good. Plato claims that once a
person develops knowledge of good, he or she will begin to love good and will act out of
love for the good. Therefore, by acting for the public good, he or she will not be acting
against his or her self-interest. Plato’s argument is valid, but it is not sound. I believe that,
in general, people are immoral because of their own self-interest. Because of this, most will
never achieve the love and knowledge for good of which Plato speaks. Therefore, I do not
think morality is a type two good, but rather a type three. This means morality is based on
consequences, which invariably is related to self-interest and the inability to understand or
define morality.