Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Plato's influence
How do our values affect our moral and ethical thinking
Ethics, values and morals
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Euthyphro Dilemma comes from Plato’s Dialogue “Euthyphro”. This dilemma has had a major effect on Theism. The Euthyphro Dilemma is based off of the idea, is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God? Each of these two possibilities leads to consequences that the divine command theorists cannot accept. However the divine command theorist answers this question, his answer in the end is defeated. This dilemma has been a major problem for some theists, while other theists have believed that the Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma. The Euthyphro Dilemma date all the way back to after 399 B.C. and remains a significant dilemma to this day.
The Euthyphro Dilemma is a dilemma for Socrates. Socrates is trying to learn from Euthyphro to help him with his trial against Meletus. Euthyphro suggest that holiness is persecuting religious offenders. Socrates was not happy with this answer. Euthyphro suggest that what is holy is agreeable to the Gods. Socrates points out that often the Gods quarrel so what might be acceptable to one God is not acceptable to another God. The whole dilemma is caused by Socrates asking questions to Euthyphro
…show more content…
coming up with problems to Euthyphro’s solutions. The Euthyphro Dilemma is now also a dilemma to theists and ethicists. The dilemma argues gods greatness and plays a major role in every bodies lives whether they know it or not. How you interpret this dilemma could possibly result in people wasting their time war shipping God’s holiness. There are many solutions and problems to Euthyphro’s dilemma, it all depends on how you would like to interpret the text. One of the problems is that is something simply right because God declares that it is right or is it right because God recognizes a moral code that he holds superior to even himself? At first look the content of morality would be arbitrary. God has declared murder, theft, and debauchery wrong even though it could possibly been right if God hadn’t stated so. This reduces God’s goodness of his power. Something is simply good or bad because God says so. For God himself, there is no right and wrong. He makes up what is good and bad. This stand point is based off of Islam and is not accepted by Christians. It is not God’s choice to call what is wrong right and what is right wrong. The Text is very clear, “It is impossible for God to Lie” (Hebrews 6:18). The alternative to the Islam view which is recognized as the Christian view is morality is not arbitrary. If God can not violate this law, doesn’t that then mean he is his holding himself to higher power? Either way you look at this problem, both Christian views are wrong. God is either not good or sovereign. This is the dilemma. There are a few different solutions to the dilemma. Christians throw away the first option which is morality is an arbitrary function of God’s power. Christians also decline the second option which is God is responsible to a higher law. There is no higher law. The third option then is morality is based on the immutable character of God. God doesn’t base his commands off of his own whims but they are based off of his holiness. Christians believe that morality is not based of God’s commands, but from his character which is then shown through his commands. Whatever God commands is always good. Another problem then is encountered after the dilemma has been solved through the Christian’s view. It is believed that God is good, but we cannot solve this without understanding the actual meaning of “good”. Good means to have the nature of God. If this is true, then saying that God is good simply means that we are saying pretty much that “God is God”. And there for this does us no good saying that. This could be represented by x=x. Anything that is true for one of them then is true for the other. Therefore they are not two things but rather they are one. God is good then gets us nowhere and defeats its self. Based off of the Christian view, when we say that “God is Good”, we are giving additional information. This means that God has a certain quality. God is not the same thing as good, but it is an important quality of his. Therefore when we say that “God is good”, we do not mean the same thing as x=x. The Christian teaching faces another problem.
How can we know what good is without defining it first? How Abraham responded when he found out Gods intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah gives us a hint. The question is asked, how Abraham knew that justice required God not to treat the wicked and righteousness alike. Abraham didn’t know anything of goodness, but used what was morally right to him. He did not need God to show him what was Justice, but he knew it directly with in himself what was morally right. The Euthyphro dilemma misinterprets the biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above nor below God, it is a characteristic within him that we base ethics off of. Christianity is not necessarily true, but it is assisted by Plato’s challenge to
Euthyphro. The Euthyphro Dilemma is an ongoing dilemma that started all the way back to after 399 B.C. and is still analyzed today by many people. There are many different standpoints that you can look at this dilemma from but it appears that whenever there is a solution, there is a problem to follow up. Both Socrates and Euthyphro have valid points in the Dialogue “Euthyphro”, but what you believe to be true depends on how you interpret the dilemma. The Euthyphro Dilemma is why so many people have different views on God and what is morally right and just.
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
In his Plato’s Republic Socrates tries to find the values of an ideal city in order to rightly define justice. Although I agree with most of his ideals for the city, there are also many that I disagree with. Some of his ideas that I accept are that women should be able to share the same responsibilities as the men, having women and children in common, , the recognition of honor based on the self rather than heredity, that the best philosophers are useless to the multitudes, and the philosopher / king as a ruler. I disagree with his views on censorship, having assigned positions in society, his views on democracy, and that art cannot be a respectable occupation.
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:
Socrates insistence on finding the truly wise people pitches him against Euthyphro and Meletus. Euthyphro is religious by all means necessary. He even makes prophecies and has a firm claim on the fact that he is wise. He brings a murder charge against his father. On the other hand, Meletus is the man responsible fro bringing charges against Socrates with an aim of having him executed. Meletus, having been cross-examined by Socrates, is put to utmost shame for his lack of a firm grip on facts that are required of him (Desjardins 33). When questioning Euthyphro, Socrates makes an effort to truly find out from this religious man what holiness is. After engaging him for a while, Euthyphro is frustrated and leaves the conversation an angry man. This way of throwing doubt on someone’s beliefs is what Socrates’ signature way of argument became.
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...
This philosophical study will define the relationship between morality and religion in the Socratic dialogue of the Euthyphro by Plato. The primary argument put forth by Socrates is to determine the causality of morality/piousness in and unto itself or by the approval of the gods. Socrates attempts to question the moral and religious authority of Euthyphro, which defines the important originations of the “moral good” through the command of the gods. However, Socrates defines the original presence of the morality/piousness before the gods can “approve” or disapprove” of its goodness. This is the theoretical position of denying the issue of "divine command” of the gods’ existence before morality/piousness, which Socrates refutes in the arguments
When Socrates asks Euthyphro to define the word pious he dodges the question and rather gives an explanation of what being pious is. Socrates is trying to figure out if it was a good thing for Euthyphro to turn in his own father. Euthyphro then says that any of the gods won’t care if they (humans) care for them. And with that said that would mean “pious is pious because it’s loved by the gods” (Prompt). It won’t matter if a citizen worships the gods or if they do what is right or wrong; in the end, the gods aren’t affected by it at all. Turning, Euthyphro’s father in is wrong for the reason that the gods don’t care what he did, because it doesn’t affect them. If Euthyphro would have kept the secret about his father, then Euthyphro could’ve protected him and lied for his father because it’s his father. The majority of people would say it was morally wrong to turn in their fathers, because it’s their fathers and they could protect them. If he actually loved him, then he wouldn’t have done that. But since, he did do it, then that would mean that he cares for the law much
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 myth of the Ring of Gyges has transcended hundred of years, thusly making it a ‘tale as old as time’. Modern adaptations of this myth include JRR Tolkien’s, “Lord of the Ring” series as an example. Through this legend and others, like the myth of metals, Plato is able to demonstrate what one ought to do if one is set owner of the infamous Ring of Gyges, ergo the argumentation of why one ought to act justly. If I had a magic ring such as the Ring of Gyges I would be inclined to act mischievously, but would wind up acting as though I did not have the ring. To fully understand my position, if I had a magic ring, can only be fully comprehended once the purpose of the ring, pertaining to morality is understood. I feel as though the Socrates of The Apology and of The Republic would answer in a consistent way. Namely, that regardless of possession of the ring or not, one should act justly.
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.
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, 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
As students file into the auditorium of the Academy the first thing that we all notice is the two professors that were standing at the front of the room. After all the students were seated that is when the first professor stepped forward to address the class. Plato: Good Morning Students! Students: Good Morning Professor! Plato: Many of you may know who I am and then there are those of you that do not. For those of you that do not know who I am, my name is Plato. I founded this Academy in 387 and it is the first of its kind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Academy). I have studied under many great philosophers. After Plato got done speaking he stepped back and the professor standing to the left of him stepped forward and addressed the class. Aristotle: Good Morning Student! Students: Good Morning Professor! Aristotle: Like Plato there are many of you that know me and there are those of you that do not. So I will introduce myself to those of you that do not know me. My name is Aristotle. I was a