So...

[Chaerophon]

The assumption that reason will lead one to virtue is not valid universally, but holds true only to those who seek via reason the answers to their problems. Those who do not put forth the effort to learn or use reason are automatically cut out. That detracts, does it not, from the ability to advance virtue on a macro scale?

Certainly does! That's why I'm making the argument that, to a certain extent, Christian morality is nothing more than a codified version of the Socratic form. All of the assumptions that Socrates argued could be discovered through reason alone were transcribed into the teachings of Christ and encouraged on the basis of faith alone and a notion of sin. Turn the other cheek. Love thy neighbour. Socrates argued that through an enlightened, more perfect knowledge of virtue through heightened contemplation, one would necessarily arrive at these truths.

Reasoning can, when approached from certain min-max outcomes based models, result in actions and decisions that stamp on your fellow citizens. That strikes me as non virtuous. I suggest the decisions based on layoffs rather than recapitalization in any number of factory towns would pass Socratian muster as being well reasoned decisions which trample the human element. Sacrifice is somehow ignored, sacrifice on the part of shareholders for short term with a long term payoff, yet giving and sacrifice are powerful forces for creating virtue.

Reason in the Socratic sense has nothing to do with utilitarianism or "min-max" outcomes. Socrates argued that a higher model of virtue exists by which humans would conduct themselves if they would but take the time to discern it. "Stamping" on one's fellow citizens was the farthest thing from his mind. That being said, it is important to put his ideas into context. He existed in a time when slavery was permissable; in fact, it was a vital part of the economic life of Athens. Women had a diminished role in the economy at the time. Of course, these were true, to a certain degree, of Christ's time, as well. The fact remains, the primary focus of his philosophy was the discernment of what was just and the means by which he argued we may all attain enlightenment was through constant contemplation and thirst for knowledge.

Furthermore, under Socratic philosophy, sacrifice is far from ignored. His death alone is an example of a man sacrificing his life for his principles. He believed in the necessity of laws and justice in the state, and so, despite having every opportunity to save his own life on numerous occasions, he martyred himself so that his teachings could live on, and refusing to sacrifice his principles in exchange for his life. He argued that the pursuit of material riches at the expense of virtue was to live an unhappy and unfruitful life. An unvirtous life. Sound like anyone we know?

Heaven and Hell are irrelevant to this conversation.

Heaven and Hell are not at all irrelevant in my considerations. They make up an important part of the faith-oriented addition to Socrates' notion of virtue that constitute the Christian philosophy. Now we are taught that if we act virtuously we may attain everlasting life; for Socrates, this life was all that we had, and he conceded that to act virtuously would, in fact, be to deprive one's self of certain earthly benefits that the "unjust" would possess. He argued that the spiritual benefits to be derived in this life from such a virtuous existence would be obvious to anyone possessed of a sufficient degree of philosophic knowledge, attainable through contemplation and dialogue, and that such a man would be happier in the end than his fellows.

The central message of the teachings of Jesus, at least the message that I find central, is that of selflessness, self sacrifice on behalf of your fellow man, your family, your neighbors, even your enemies, and the focus on finding the path to Salvation (which I translate as true inner peace and synonymous to "with God"). I accept that there will be Christians who would find such characterizations heretical.

Socrates would find none of these attributes to be out of keeping with his philosophy. The difference is, he believed that virtue was a self-evident principle, that through sufficient knowledge of justice and virtue, one would arrive at the conclusion that the best life is that which is led with concern for others and love of one another. Your Salvation, then, is the same as Socrates. However, the difference lies in your promise of everlasting salvation. Socrates believed that the spirit must go on in some form, but he certainly didn't hold much in the way of a concrete set of beliefs in the afterlife.

Your Socrates' reliance on pure reason to find virtue falls short in the spiritual and moral realm, which is where virtue naturally resides.

Virtue naturally resides in our conduct with one another. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Socrates would not have behaved any differently than the best Christians. He felt that he understood virtue as such, not because he held faith in some higher power, but because he could see how his positive actions, if conducted by the multitudes, would lead to a better life for all and in acting as he did, in his more perfect knowledge of virtue (his claim: the reason that he was smarter than everyone else was that he knew that he knew nothing, so certainly not perfect) he argued that he achieved a satisfaction not to be derived through materialism, injustice, or, in the Christian sense, sin.