In Defense of Protagoras Today, relativistic ideas such as those of Protagoras are given little consideration. In actuality, Protagoras was not necessarily a relativist in the way the term is used to attack his ideas. Human relativism must be differentiated from individual relativism. With this in mind, anti-Protagoras criticisms, such as Plato’s in the Theaetetus, are easily refuted. Plato’s interpretation of Protagoras now seems arbitrary and uncharitable. A more charitable interpretation would see Protagoras as a human relativist. A distinction between human relativism and true objectivism will serve as a final clarification.   Both our language and intellectual mindset give rise to an objectivism/relativism dichotomy. This is a false dilemma. In reality, a trichotomy exists. To illustrate this point, consider the words of Xenophanes. “If horses had hands and were able to draw with their hands and do the same things as men, horses would draw shapes of gods to look like horses.” (21B15) Xenophanes speaks here of a species relativism. Usually, relativism is thought to mean relative to the perspective of the individual and objectivism is understood as encompassing all perspectives in nature. Species relativism exists in between these two extremes. It is objective in that it encompasses all perspectives within the species but relative in that it does not encompass every perspective in nature. Hence, Protagoras does not have to be either an objectivist or a relativist; there is a third choice.   Considering this distinction, we are now able to defend Protagoras’ view. In the Theaetetus, Plato’s take on Protagoras’ ideas is a good example of the typical anti-Protagoras argument. In this dialogue, Socrates claims that Protagoras’ famous quote, “man is the measure of all things,” is synonymous with the statement that “knowledge is nothing but perception.” (151e-152a) Or, as Socrates later elucidates, “what seems true to anyone is true for him to whom it seems so.” (170a) Here is our first interpretation of Protagoras as an individual relativist. This conclusion does not necessarily follow from the “man is measure” quotation because the meaning of “man” is ambiguous. It could mean either that one man is the measure of all things or that mankind as a whole is the measure of all things. The former interpretation leads us to individual relativism; the latter leads us to a species or human relativism. Which route should be chosen? Plato uncharitably chooses the interpretation which he will have the easiest time destroying. This decision occurs because Protagoras’ fragments give us no insight into which interpretation was meant. As such, the factor of charity should serve as our guide. Plato does not follow this guide. If Protagoras is interpreted to be an individual relativist, many absurdities and contradictions follow. For example, knowledge would be infallible because an individual perception can never be wrong simply because it exists (152c). It would also follow that no man can be considered superior in knowledge to another because each attains absolute knowledge through his individual perception (171d-172a). Also, if each person had perfect knowledge through their perception, and two people had differing opinions, the result would be one thing that both has a property and doesn’t have it. For example, if one person were to believe that Protagoras is correct and another were to believe he is incorrect, Protagoras would then be both correct and incorrect at the same time (171b). Clearly then, individual relativism is false. For, intuition and commonsense tell us that we are fallible, that ignorance exists, and that the law of non-contradiction is true. The idea of human relativism is much more open to argument for three reasons. First, another of Plato’s dialogues, the Protagoras, presents a very different view of Protagoras than the Theaetetus does. In the prior, Protagoras argues against Socrates that virtue can be taught. After some initial statements, both agree that wisdom is a part of virtue (330a). Thus, Protagoras must believe that some men are more knowledgeable than others are because by definition a teacher is one more knowledgeable than others. The point is that here Plato retracts his view of Protagoras being an individual relativist. Second, human relativism gets around the failings of individual relativism. If individual relativism states that whatever is true for one is the truth, then human relativism states that whatever is true for humans in general is true. A kind of majority rule. So, the individual is not infallible because an appeal to the majority may prove him wrong. The same truth criteria would allow ignorance to exist. Also, the law of non-contradiction is not infringed upon. Third, human relativism seems to be true upon a survey of human morality. A common response to cultural relativism is that although each culture differs slightly in their morality, all moralities are more similar than different. For example, murder is considered wrong in every culture. If murder were not considered wrong, the culture in question would cease to exist. Yet the statement, “murder is wrong,” has an unstated meaning; namely, that it is wrong to murder humans. We don’t take “murder is wrong” to mean that to murder animals is wrong. Yet why is this? The differences between animals and humans are slight. For example, take a severely retarded human and a very smart ape. Humans would still agree that it is more morally permissible to murder the ape than the human. But, as Xenophanes would say, apes would judge it more morally permissible to murder the human in this, and any situation. It thus seems that morality is relative to the species. An objector might reply that few humans consider it morally correct to murder an ape. They might say that there are a vast amount of animals encapsulated under the “it is wrong to murder” category. For example, dogs and cats and other animals that frequently become household pets. Yet this reply only strengthens the claim that morality is species relative because the species protected from murder are those that we find most similar to our species. Animals that possess human characteristics such as cognition, emotion, and personality are subsumed under the “it is wrong to murder humans” category because they are human-like. Thus, our current state of morality speaks for a species relativism.      Really then, human relativists are what the so-called objectivists, who belittle Protagoras for being a relativist, are. A truly objective morality would have to take the perspective of everything in nature, not just a particular species or grouping of similar species. For example, from the perspective of a plant, it would not be considered in anyway more morally permissible to murder an animal than a human. From the perspective of the non-living it would not be more morally permissible to murder a plant than an animal. From the perspective of the non-living, life would not even be considered better than non-life. Thus, true objectivism as a morality would be utterly repugnant to those who call themselves objectivists. Human relativism is what both “objectivists” and Protagoras argue for. Basically, the interpretation of Protagoras as an individual relativist is arbitrary and also quite convenient for his critics. An interpretation of human relativism could just as well be made from Protagoras’ “man is measure” statement. Due to the blatant contradictions and untenableness of individual relativism, charity commands us to make an interpretation of human relativism. In the end, the new human relativism and the old objectivism are understood to be the same position. The original disagreement was merely a confusion over terms.  Cohen, S. Marc, and Patricia Curd. Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2000. Plato. Theaetetus. Handout