Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The euthyphro dilemma is it really a dilemma
Why is the euthyphro argument true
The euthyphro dilemma is it really a dilemma
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The euthyphro dilemma is it really a dilemma
Euthyphro by Plato, challenges the core ethics of belief and fact. Socrates the main character of this story is being tried by Meletus for inventing new Gods, rejecting the old ones, and corrupting the youth of Athens with his beliefs. Euthyphro the other main character who is a priest, is astonished a man such as Socrates would be tried for such a crime. For Euthyphro also often doubted for his unique beliefs of divine matters and his predictions of the future. The main point of the story however, is Socrates questioning of Euthyphro’s reasoning and claims for prosecuting his father; even though his crime was murder of a murderer. This short essay will highlight and analyze the main faults Socrates sees within Euthyphro’s reasoning for prosecuting …show more content…
his father based on two things what is pious and impious. The first debate between Euthyphro and Socrates is about whether or not Euthyphro’s prosecution against his father is holy or unholy.
To help understand the discussion between the two, one must understand that pious means to be devoutly religious, whereas impious means to not show respect or reverence, especially for a God. In this story, Euthyphro claims to be an expert in all godly matters, so he justifies himself taking action against his father as a pious act; “to prosecute the wrongdoer, be it about murder or temple robbery or anything else, whether the wrongdoer is your father or your mother or anyone else; not to prosecute is impious.” However, Socrates finds fault and is not satisfied with this explanation since Greek law states that to prosecute one’s father for murder is a religious crime in itself. So in choosing to prosecute his father Euthyphro ends up breaking one of the religious laws he claims to be upholding in his decision to go against his …show more content…
father. Nonetheless, Euthyphro counters Socrates argument and compares himself to Zeus who also, according to myth, prosecuted his father for unjustly swallowing his own sons. Yet once again Socrates is not pleased with Euthyphro’s defense and questions him further over what is holy and unholy actions. It is obvious that Socrates is setting Euthyphro up for failure, because it is clear to him that even though Euthyphro claims to be an expert in all things divine he still chooses to prosecute his father which is an impious act. In an attempt to make Socrates understand his reasoning, Euthyphro changes his explanation of what holiness is to, “what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious.” This means in other words that the Gods dictate what is holy and what is not holy.
At first Socrates agrees but later makes Euthyphro question this definition as well as he provides examples of impious things Gods do that by Euthyphro’s definition should be considered pious. Socrates claims that if each God is different then is each thing the do pious or is it just random Gods one should choose to follow in deciding what is holy and what is not; “my good Euthyphro, different gods consider different things to be just, beautiful, ugly, good, and bad, for they would not be at odds with one another unless they differed about these subjects.” This explanation that Socrates proposes makes Euthyphro once again retract his former statement and agree with the counter argument Socrates
suggests. Euthyphro is seen agreeing, disagreeing, and rephrasing his argument over and over again throughout the story. By the end of the debate Euthyphro is so exasperated with Socrates he finds an excuse to leave. It is clear that Euthyphro is not the expert on the divine matters he once believed he was. Which is of course, being uncertain on holy matters is a negative thing to be if one is a priest who is set to prosecute his father on these claims. The intentions of Socrates were not to make Euthyphro appear stupid but rather he sought to point out that if one is going to claim to know something, they should be able to define it and not be swayed by the arguments of others. That being said, in Euthyphros defense satisfying the numerous questions and beliefs of Socrates is one that no man alone could accomplish. Finally, the moral of the overall story appears to be that one should not claim to be an expert in something so unexplainable such as an ultimate being or beings unless they have definitive proof of their claims.
Before getting into the principles of Socrates, it is important to have some context on these two stories to understand how each of these exemplify philosophical understanding. “Euthyphro” is a dialogue between Socrates and
...purpose is “to unmask the hypocrisy and show how the meaning of Justice is being perverted” . He is not prepared to argue, leaving Socrates victorious. Here, Socrates’s method of argumentative questioning is insufficient and naïve against a stubborn, powerful and philosophically certain moral skeptic. This is confirmed by the change in investigative approach in the latter books. Thus the ‘earlier’ Plato cannot adequately respond to Thrasymachus’s immoralist view of Justice.
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
In the context of the dialogue, this simply segues to a logical argument about the definition of piety, and the question is more or less rhetorical as Socrates asks it. When Euthyphro chooses the first option, the discussion moves on to his next point without further ado, and the implication that this limits the omnipotence of the gods is ignored, probably because the omnipotence of the pantheon of gods wasn?t an assumption of Greek theology (after all, as we read in the dialogue, the father and grandfather of Zeus were castrated; what kind of omnipotent being would allow that to happen to himself?). However, when read with a Judeo-Christian concept of God in mind, the dilemma becomes this:
Euthyphro’s second definition of piety is “the pious is what the gods love”. Socrates takes this idea and
Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the blasphemous charges outside the courthouse to a priest Euthyphro. Socrates looks to the priest to tell him what exactly is pious so that he may educate himself as to why he would be perceived as impious. Found in the Apology, another of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Socrates aims to defend his principles to the five hundred and one person jury. Finally, the Crito, an account of Socrates’ final discussion with his good friend Crito, Socrates is offered an opportunity to escape the prison and his death sentence. As is known, Socrates rejected the suggestion. It is in the Euthyphro and the Apology that it can be deduced that Socrates is not guilty as charged, he had done nothing wrong and he properly defended himself. However, in the Crito, it is shown that Socrates is guilty only in the interpretation and enforcement of Athens’ laws through the court system and its jurors. Socrates’ accusations of being blasphemous are also seen as being treasonous.
In response to the second objection, Socrates does make a large leap from saying that he believes in the spirits to saying that he believes in the gods, however, this does not necessarily mean that his statements are false. In the objection we say that these supernatural spirits could include ghosts or other dead souls, but at the same time the spirits can include other divinities and gods. We are not trying to prove that Socrates believes in a certain god, but that he is not an atheist, or one who denies or disbelieves the existence of god. Furthermore, Socrates is already charged of teaching the youth to believe in divinities and unlike supernatural powers, divinities are deities or gods and goddesses. The fact that Socrates believes in divinities refutes any objection that Socrates may be an atheist.
This is a reasonable answer on all fronts. Not to say that Euthyphro was not a holy man, but he certainly could not define his own existence- which is the exact sentiment which Socrates was trying to provoke. There is a clear difference between the definition of Socrates and the definitions of Euthyphro.
During this essay the trail of Socrates found in the Apology of Plato will be reviewed. What will be looked at during this review is how well Socrates rebuts the charges made against him. We will also talk about if Socrates made the right decision to not escape prison with Crito. Socrates was a very intelligent man; this is why this review is so critical.
Imagine the time just after the death of Socrates. The people of Athens were filled with questions about the final judgment of this well-known, long-time citizen of Athens. Socrates was accused at the end of his life of impiety and corruption of youth. Rumors, prejudices, and questions flew about the town. Plato experienced this situation when Socrates, his teacher and friend, accepted the ruling of death from an Athenian court. In The Last Days of Socrates, Plato uses Socrates’ own voice to explain the reasons that Socrates, though innocent in Plato’s view, was convicted and why Socrates did not escape his punishment as offered by the court. The writings, “Euthyphro,” “The Apology,” “Crito,” and “Pheado” not only helped the general population of Athens and the friends and followers of Socrates understand his death, but also showed Socrates in the best possible light. They are connected by their common theme of a memoriam to Socrates and the discussion of virtues. By studying these texts, researchers can see into the culture of Athens, but most important are the discussions about relationships in the book. The relationships between the religion and state and individual and society have impacted the past and are still concerns that are with us today.
The story that is found in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro proposes a dilemma that has since been a very controversial subject. When Socrates encounters Euthyphyo, he is on his way to trail to face charges against his own father. His father had been accused o...
In the Euthyphro, Euthyphro himself gives three proposals of piety. First, the pious is to prosecute the wrongdoer and the impious is not to prosecute the wrongdoer. Socrates disputes this example as lacking generality. He believed that in order to define piety, one had to find the form that made all pious acts pious. An example of a pious act does not in turn define piety. Euthyphro’s second attempt stated that the pious is loved by the gods, while the impious was hated by them. Again, Socrates objects, saying that although it passed the generality requirement, there was no conformity among the objects dear to the gods. After all, the gods had different opinions as did humans. Euthyphro then tries to modify his second attempt by narrowing the requirement to what is loved by all gods or hated by all gods. Socrates deflates this notion as well. He questions wether the pious is loved because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is loved. To be loved is a quality given by an act of love. The mere fact of being loved by a god does not give meaning to piety or make the act pious. The point was to find out what a pious act is before declaring it to be god-loved. Euthyphro’s third proposal was to say that piety is a knowledge of how to give to, and beg from the gods, or a part of justice concerned with care of the gods. However, Socrates was pretty blunt in pointing out that the gods lack nothing a human could provide, therefore making those acts of prayer or sacrifice, nothing but for the pleasure of the gods. The acts would then fit under what is beloved by the gods, which was already defeated as the second proposal. The definition of justice was left for a later di...
In 399 BC, Socrates, the great philosopher in ancient Greece, was put to death under the hands of his Athenian fellow-citizens to whom he had a strong attachment, after a final vote with over two-thirds of jurymen against him. We cannot experience the situation where Socrates gave his final argument in the court of law. From Plato’s Apology, we admire Socrates’ brilliant rhetoric and rigorous logic, while at the same time feel pity for him and indignant with those ruthless jurymen. However, the question of what exactly caused his death and why was Socrates, such a remarkable thinker sentenced to death in the very society that valued democracy the most is not easy and straightforward to answer. There are multiple elements involved that finally caused this tragedy in which “a person of high moral principle is confronted step by step with a situation from which there is no escape” (38). First of all, the moral principle and belief in divinity held by Socrates are inconsistent with those of the Athenian society, implying the very crimes charged upon Socrates were not completely groundless. Secondly, the imperfect juridical system of Athens played a role in causing this tragedy. What’s more, Socrates himself, could have offered better defense in the court, also had a hand in his own death by his stubbornness regarding to his own interpretation of wisdom and piety. His rebuttal, though brilliant and insightful, was not persuasive enough to move the fellow-citizens for his wrong approach and sophistry in his cross-examination on Meletus.
Euthyphro was arguing that by doing what the gods believe is holy and pious you are making them better, in other words you are taking care of them and it is like a kind of service that you are doing towards the gods. Euthyphro said, “The kind of care, Socrates, that slaves take of their masters” which meant that you are taking care of them in the sense that you are making them better and not actually caring for them (17, 13d). In other words, you are helping improve them and this is a service that the gods appreciate and want you to do. He believed that this service is improving the gods and that they like this service. The gods believe that being holy is a service towards them, therefore there should be a reason on why the gods use us and want to reward our holiness. He believes that the gods choose what is holy for a reason and should be approved by
Out of the confrontation with Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, Socrates emerges as a reflective individual searching for the rational foundation of morality and human excellence. The views presented by the three men are invalid and limited as they present a biased understanding of justice and require a re-examination of the terminology. The nature in which the faulty arguments are presented, leave the reader longing to search for the rational foundations of morality and human virtue.