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 …show more content…
Some include: prosecuting the wrongdoer; simply being loved by the gods; and whatever is dear to the gods is considered pious. Within this excerpt from Plato’s Five Dialogues, there are alternative parts to the question. The first part is saying that doing morally good acts which cause the gods to love someone is pious. So, when Euthyphro claimed that prosecuting his father is an act loved by the gods, the act of bringing justice is what makes someone pious thus loved by the gods. This is evident in the first take mentioned in class, when Euthyphro gave the example of Zeus castrating his father Cronos. He then goes to claim that since Zeus is the highest of the gods, whatever he does cannot be impious. Euthyphro then compares his situation to Zeus’ which he then concludes that his actions are indeed pious. This is connected to the first part of the posed question because it is talking about the actions performed by the subject that cause the gods to love that subject, thus making the whole situation pious. In one of the “takes” mentioned in class, Euthyphro claims that the pious means to solely be loved by the gods. Like discussed in class, changing is the active while being changed is passive. This can be applied to something loved because it is being loved. The ones doing the loving are the
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
In the Euthyphro, Plato describes the proceedings of a largely circular argument between Socrates and Euthyphro, a self-declared prophet and pious man, over the nature of piety and even of the gods themselves. The issues raised in this dialogue have been reinterpreted and extended to remain relevant even with a modern theological framework, so much so that the central issue is now known simply as ?the Euthyphro dilemma.? This is based on Socrates? two-way choice which he offers in the dialogue:
Euthyphro by asking “whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy,
A question that breaks off from that is, “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods (10a)?” Without reading Euthyphro, understanding this question would be nearly impossible. I think that the answer requires a lot of thinking. Piety is pious simply because it is a pious thing, not because it is loved. If you take gods out of the scenario, piety is based on societal beliefs, pious actions are done to please ourselves, and we already have the knowledge to make pious things. Socrates was not found guilty of being impious, but he was found guilty for not believing the same way his society did, showing that piety is linked with society, not the
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...
“he shows the god’s beliefs are inconsistent but because testing his own beliefs about what the god’s pronouncement means proves to be the operative sense in which the god himself can be “refuted.” So that when Socrates hopes to exhibit through his examinations of the politicians, poets and artisans is just that, since there is someone wiser than Socrates, he has reasons for believing the god means something other than what he appears to first say” (Carvalho 41-42). If Socrates was pious then he would have taken the words of the God Apollo literally instead of trying to prove them wrong. He constantly tries to find someone who is wiser than himself instead of believing it at first. When arguing that he does believe in the Gods this argument only causes more disbelief and shows the crowd that he is lying to them. Socrates gets tangled up in his own argument which causes others to see him as someone who is untruthful, when appealing to a large group of jurors it is unethical to lie to them because if they figure it out then he has no chance of receiving a moderate
Certainly, Socrates’ arguments about the limitations of godly knowledge of the “moral good” devolve the idea of divine command as a cause of piety, but more importantly, it defines the philosophical evaluation of piety as a way to educate Euthyphro to analyze his pre-assumed beliefs with greater conviction. In this dialogue, the issue of the “moral good” becomes a more complex relationship between Euthyphro’s religious and moral perception of philosophy: “I told you a short while ago, Socrates, that it is a considerable task to acquire any precise knowledge of these things” (177). This new perspective defines the effectiveness of Socrates’ argument to dispel the overly confident assumption that the gods approve of piety, since piety has its own unique qualities that need to be defined. This moral and religious relationship is ambiguous because Socrates has opened the possibility of Euthyphro coming to his own conclusions about the gods and the “moral good”, which should be presumed by religious doctrines or in the divine command of the
Keeping true to Socratic/Platonic methodology, questions are raised in the Euthyphro by conversation; specifically “What is holiness?” After some useless deliberation, the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro ends inconclusively. Euthyphro varying definitions of piety include “What I do is pious to the gods,” and, “What is pleasing to the gods is pious.” Socrates proves these definitions to be insufficient, which leads us to the Apology.
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
Dating all the way back to ancient Greece, Plato raised a challenge by merely asking, “Is it right because God commands it, or does God command it because it’s right?” Nowadays, this simple yet complex question poses a problem to modern day Christians. When understanding this question, you are forced to believe you only have one of two choices to accept. Those being either it is right because God commands it or God commands it because it is right. If it is right because God commands it then anything, specifically evil, could be right. On the other hand, if God commands it because it is right then the standard of goodness is no longer. Both options are hostile to Christianity. However, after further investigation, there is a third option: God’s very nature is the standard of goodness. By closely examining Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma, it’s clear that a theist should undoubtedly accept the third option, being that of God’s nature is the standard of goodness.
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
In The Euthyphro, Socrates uses his Socratic Method to disprove the Divine Command theory to his friend, Euthyphro. According to the textbook, the Socratic Method is a method that Socrates would use to get to the foundation of his students beliefs. He would ask continual questions about a student’s belief or assumption until a contradiction was raised. By doing so, Socrates would force his students to question their own beliefs and truly discern why they believed them. Socrates applied this method to Euthyphro when Socrates and Euthyphro had a conversation in regards to the definition of holiness. During this conversation, Euthyphro states that holiness is what is agreeable to the gods. However, Socrates disputes this idea by stating that gods quarrel just as humans quarrel in regards to issues such as right and wrong, holy and unholy, and justice and injustice. With this reasoning, Socrates argues that what one god may view as right or moral, another god may view as wrong or immoral. Thus, an action may be acceptable and moral to one god and unacceptable and immoral to another, and what is considered to
The interesting dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro demonstrates this Socratic method of questioning in order to gain a succinct definition of a particular idea, such as piety. Though the two men do not come to a conclusion about the topic in the conversation seen in Euthyphro, they do discover that piety is a form of justice, which is more of a definition than their previous one. Their conversation also helps the reader to decipher what makes a good definition. Whenever Euthyphro attempts to define piety, Socrates seems to have some argument against the idea. Each definition offered, therefore, becomes more succinct and comes closer to the actual concept of piety, rather than just giving an example or characteristic of it. To be able to distinguish between a good definition and a bad one is the first step to defining what Socrates so desperately wished to define: w...