In “Euthyphro” by Plato, the argument is based on what the definition of being holy is. Socrates is being charged with committing unholy actions. In order to win his case, he has to figure out exactly what makes something holy or unholy. He enlists Euthyphro to explain this to him. Euthyphro is supposed to be full of knowledge regarding this issue, but in reality he has no clue what he is talking about. Euthyphro changes his point of view during his explanations many times. Each time became slightly more confusing than the last. At first Euthyphro stated, “Piety is doing as I am doing; that is to say, prosecuting any one who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of any similar crime-whether he be your father or mother, or whoever he may be-that makes no difference; and not to prosecute them is impiety. “ Socrates explains to Euthyphro that this is an act of piety, not the definition. So Euthyphro counters his comment saying that holiness is what is agreeable by the gods. Once again, Socrates proves his argument to be of no substance. Euthyphro continues to undertake his mission to prove to Socrates that he has an understanding of piety. After many …show more content…
We give through sacrifice and they give back by giving us whatever we desire. This entire argument makes no sense at all. It has no relation with the definition of holiness. It has more to do with acts of holiness. Euthyphro made the same mistake earlier in his statement concerning seeking justice for wrongdoings. Socrates points this out in the following statement: “Remember that I did not ask you to give me two or three examples of piety, but to explain the general idea which makes all pious things to be pious. Do you not recollect that there was one idea which made the impious impious, and the pious pious?” He provided Socrates with an act of being holy, not a definition, which in no way helped his
During the dialogue, Euthyphro defines, “Piety means prosecuting the unjust individual who has committed murder or sacrilege, or any other such crime, as I am doing now, whether he is your father or mother or whoever he is.” Given this Euthyphro overarching principles can be summarized as divine law requires to prosecute the offender no matter who she or he is. Also, the ideology should be what befits humans as well. Socrates is fine with how Euthyphro accounts the factual evidence of his father’s misguided acts. What Socrates takes problem is how Euthyphro uses greek mythology to highlight that taking action against your parents is the correct direction of action. Due to the fact that mythology isn’t confirmed to be true in any sense, socrates feels as though this is extremely inappropriate. Euthyphro actions should be based on divine law with results in him being impious. Socrates ultimate principles can be summarized as respect for parents should be the ultimate law combined with whatever does not befit the gods shouldn’t befit everyone else. Insert another
When discussing specific knowledge, it is often hard to pin down an exact definition of what it is you are discussing. Often a concept or word will get thrown around so often that it will begin to be taken for granted and when pressed, a person may struggle to pin down specifically what it is they mean. Realizing this, Socrates often went out and attempted to fix these kinds of problems and find out what people actually knew, compared to what they just thought they knew. In the dialogues Euthyphro and Meno, Socrates attempts to pin down definitions for piety and virtue, respectively. In doing so, we are shown that the thinkers in question struggle to define these terms, and attempt to do so in vague terms that may vary heavily under different circumstances. What Socrates is attempting to find is one definitive definition of piety and virtue, what is called his One Form Requirement. Rather than defining something by classifying different parts that make it up, Socrates maintains the belief that piety and virtue both can be simplified into one specific form that describes exactly what makes all F actions F.
He establishes that “the pious is what all the gods love”. Socrates immediately asks a clarifying question, asking whether the gods love pious acts because they are pious or if it because since the gods love these actions it makes them pious. Euthyphro choses to say that the gods love pious acts because they are pious, which was a mistake in his thought process. Euthyphro committed the begging the question fallacy. Socrates shows that although Euthyphro is deemed an expert in this field, he does know understand piety at all. He has brought the conversation to the beginning by saying that pious acts are pious because they are pious, which is not an explanation. It is redundant in thinking, which is what Socrates wanted to avoid. At the end when Socrates tries to further push Euthyphro’s thinking, Euthyphro merely gives up and avoids Socrates altogether. Plato again illustrates the importance of applying rational thought when one ventures to find the truth. Euthyphro did not ask himself insightful and challenging questions to further push his idea towards the truth. Had he use rational standards, he would developed his idea in a much clearer
In the Euthyphro, Socrates is making his way into the courthouse; however, prior to entering he had a discussion with a young priest of Athens, Euthyphro. This dialogue relates religion and justice to one another and the manner in which they correlate. Euthyphro feels as though justice necessitates religion and Socrates feels the opposite, religion necessitates justice. Euthyphro claims that religion is everything, justice, habits, traditions, customs, cultures, etc. all are derived from religion. Socrates went on to question what exactly would be the definition of pious. Euthyphro offered Socrates three definitions of pious and in all three Socrates was able to successfully find fault...
The first objection that Socrates stated was that Euthyphro’s first definition of piety was not a definition because it did not express a general idea of the word piety. Soon after the first try at defining the word piety, Euthyphro said that “what is dear to all the gods.” In disagreement, Socrates let out his second objection, which was that some gods could disagree. Then, Euthyphro said that piety was “what is dear to all the gods.” As his final objection, Socrates states “should something be pious just because it is dear to the gods or is it dear to the gods because it is pious?” In short, is an action considered morally right by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because God orders it? Even though this important point impacts the Divine Command Theory mainly, it also works against the theory of Cultural Relativism. The theory’s problems start arising when you start to think “why do our actions become moral if society or our culture approves of them?” There is also nothing in the theory of Cultural Relativism that explains why normal behavior in a society is considered the moral behavior instead of the other way around. Thus, morality is decided on a random basis there is nothing that says what makes normal behavior moral. The Divine Command Theory and Cultural Relativism both share this weakness that discredits
Socrates had asked the statement regarding piety because he felt that the Athenians did not understand the true meaning of piety (right) and impiety (wrong) and wanted to understand the reason behind the accusations against him through Euthyphro’s reason behind his charges against his father. Socrates asks Euthyphro the meaning of piety because he does not understand what it is and as it seems so does Euthyphro who continues to give examples rather than the actual answer to the question. Socrates asks Euthyphro if pious people are just and
Socrates asks Euthyphro to give another definition of holiness, because the previous definition, that what is holy is what is approved of by the gods, has been disproven. Socrates suggests that maybe everything that is holy is just. Socrates quotes a line of poetry, to demonstrate his point: "where fear is, there is too is reverence." Socrates disagrees with that idea, saying that there are many things that people fear, such as sickness and poverty, which we do not revere. However, he points out, where there is reverence, there is also fear: a feeling of reverence and shame for an act can be seen as fearing a bad reputation. His ideas about justice and holiness are comparable; he suggests that holiness is a part of justice, but that there may
What makes the god-beloved the god-beloved is the fact that the gods love it, whereas what makes the pious the pious is something else entirely. The gods can love many things for many reasons and therefore, whatever is pious may be loved by the gods, but what is loved by the gods is up to discretion. For instance, he points out that the gods argue over not questions that can be reached through calculation but over questions such as what is just and what is good. Socrates asks Euthyphro if people who are pious are also just in which he responds yes, but there is a part of justice that cares to the gods and part that cares to the men. The problem with this statement lies in the notion of ‘care’. With some things such as horses and men, care implies some way of making them better but when applied to gods, care cannot have this meaning as men cannot make the gods better. He states that prayer and sacrifices are not beneficial to god as god doesn’t need our acknowledgement but the practices are only beneficial to the believer. If we can do nothing to benefit god, then the first part of justice is irrelevant and we must focus on other men or moral conduct according to Socrates. Euthyphro then defines pious as not what is beneficial to the gods but as what is pleasing to them. We come to conclude that neither Socrates nor Euthyphro knows what the true nature of piety is as they cannot explain the origin or why piety is the way it is. We are left with the initial question of what is
Essentially the third definition of holiness according to Socrates was that the Gods love things because they are holy, and that things are not holy because the Gods love them. That means that things or actions are already holy and then Gods love them,
Socrates argues that he didn’t want some examples but a general idea that makes all pious things to be pious. Then Euthyphro says “Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them“. Next Socrates asks him what if the gods are having quarrels among them, then there wouldn’t be any single right or wrong because of the gods different perspectives on different matters so somethings could be both dear and hateful to the gods, hence rises the question is the pious, pious as a view of the fact that it is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or it is holy because it is beloved by the gods which is in contradiction with Euthyphro’s claim that what all the gods love is pious and what they hate is impious. Socrates
Socrates encounters Euthyphro outside the court of Athens. Socrates has been called to court on charges of impiety by Meletus, and Euthyphro has come to prosecute his own father for having unintentionally killed a murderous hired hand. Socrates flatters Euthyphro, suggesting that Euthyphro must be a great expert in religious matters if he is willing to prosecute his own father on so questionable a charge. Euthyphro concurs that he does indeed know all there is to be known about what is holy. Socrates urges Euthyphro to instruct him and to teach him what holiness is, since Euthyphro's teaching might help Socrates in his trial against Meletus.
Throughout the second half of the Euthyphro section of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Socrates is trying to search for a true meaning of the word pious. He converses with Euthyphro to try and detect a definition, in which they both discuss their own court cases. This is when Euthyphro brings up the discussion between piety and impiety, and in doing so creates curiosity within Socrates. Socrates asks Euthyphro to please provide a definition of what is pious or not. Euthyphro first mentions that the definition of piety is what he is doing at that moment, which is prosecuting his father for murder. Socrates disregards this so called definition because he claims it is only an example, not a true definition. After giving possible definitions both in the
“I am sure, therefore, that you know the nature of piety and impiety. Speak out then, my dear Euthyphro, and do not hide your knowledge.” (Plato, Euthyphro). Socrates is constantly mocking Euthyphro by repeatedly asking 'What is piety? And How does it differ from Justice'. From time and time again Euthyphro unknowingly repeats his answer in various forms. Socrates takes note of Euthyphro's ignorance and challenges Euthyphro's understanding of the terms justice, the principle, and piety, the action. Further into the dialogue, one can infer the assumed definitions of these terms.
Piety comes to be understood as a kind of continuum, and Socrates uniquely represents the “sober mean” on this pious continuum (Strauss 52). In other words, Xenophon’s treatment of Socratic piety in the Memorabilia depends specifically upon highlighting the distinctiveness of Socratic pious praxis from extreme positions. Thus, although Xenophon exonerates Socrates he does so only to an extent that brings into focus the uniqueness of Socratic pious praxis. Moreover, Socrates’ sober view –as outlined by the Memorabilia - limits the power of the divine in two main ways. Firstly, it governs resort to piety through resort to reason; one who is truly pious limits his resort to the divine only to asking questions about unknown outcomes. Accordingly, one who is truly pious, will more readily rely on reason to resolve issues that deviate from this former qualification. This claim is in itself problematic because its implementation depends upon the belief in a formulation of the divine that is uniquely rational; it requires the worship of a divine that in itself acknowledges the full potential of human reason, and thereby understands the limited resort to divinity that would inevitably emerge as an outcome of this rationalistic pious praxis. Furthermore, it requires a very fragile distinction; one can ask
The man eventually starved to death in the ditch and this troubled Euthyphro, he believed the murder was impious no matter the circumstances and believed it was his duty to prosecute his father for the killing. When discussing the incident, Plato questions if Euthyphro knowledge of religion on determining if things are pious or impious, who responds with; “Prosecuting a wrongdoer is pious, whether it is your friend, or your parents, or a stranger” (pp. 308). This spouts Socrates suggestion of a philosophical flaw to this divine command theory, which is now known as the Euthyphro question, while Euthyphro was an extremist and very pious, it left little room for convincing a touchy topic. Socrates tried to get across the question of an action is wrong or impious because God forbids it or does God forbid it because it is wrong or