Essay#1: Euthyphro
The pious is pious because the gods love it, not the other way around. Plato’s Euthyphro deals with the key philosophical question, “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” Socrates delves on the question because he wants Euthyphro to be aware that he does not know what piety and impiety are. He wants the priest to acknowledge that his answers to piety are not true. The pious and impious are interpreted differently for each person. One can never conclude on a single answer. Euthyphro understands the pious in religious terms only. He makes a sacrifice to the gods and is to behave morally.
The Euthyphro side of the argument argues for the pious being clear-cut. He thinks that the pious is holy to the gods. He also bases his arguments on a clear definition of the words. For example, here is a quote that is very important in his stance, “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. And please to consider, Socrates, what a notable proof I will give you of the truth of my words, a proof which I have already given to others:-of the principle, I mean, that the impious,
…show more content…
whoever he may be, ought not to go unpunished”(Euthyphro 10). Euthyphro looks to the gods as a marker of what the impious and pious are. Impiety is what is not dear to the gods according to Euthyphro. Euthyphro thinks that serving the gods is all too distinct than serving man. He sacrifices animals to the gods so that they can bestow material goods upon him. Socrates question the practice saying that it does not promote moral development. Next, the Socratic side of the argument argues that piety and impiety cannot be so simple to figure out. He also wants to learn from the “master”, that is Euthyphro of what is pious and impious so that he can defend himself in court against the charges that Meletus has brought against him. He tests to prove that what Euthyphro is saying is true in the quote, “Well then, my dear friend Euthyphro, do tell me, for my better instruction and information, what proof have you that in the opinion of all the gods a servant who is guilty of murder, and is put in chains by the master of the dead man, and dies because he is put in chains before he who bound him can learn from the interpreters of the gods what he ought to do with him, dies unjustly; and that on behalf of such an one a son ought to proceed against his father and accuse him of murder. How would you show that all the gods absolutely agree in approving of his act? Prove to me that they do, and I will applaud your wisdom as long as I live”(Euthyphro 15). Socrates knows that Euthyphro cannot perform that impossible task. Euthyphro can try, but he will fail. The gods are in discord a lot according to Socrates. Socrates just wants to inquire. Socrates lives for talking about virtue and he is not satisfied with a definition because people have their own interpretations of an occurrence or matter. Socrates tells Euthyphro that he does not know what piety truly is. Euthyphro is still unable to clearly answer by the end of the dialogue. Socrates knows that the question of piety is very important. Everybody should know what impiety is, so that they do not perform impious acts. The dialogue ends with no answer satisfying Socrates. Socrates informs Euthyphro that he must venture on and find the true meaning of piety and impiety once and for all. His father has to remain free until he finds the answer. Otherwise, he would by doing a great injustice to his father. Socrates tells Euthyphro to not be so arrogant. Socrates tells Euthyphro that serving the gods and serving fellow men are no different. Socrates proclaims that God loves it when people promote their moral and spiritual development. Also, Socrates is posing to as to what is the proposed definition of the pious as what is loved by all the gods.
It is argued continuously throughout the dialogue. There are differences that make for the nature of piety, and the nature of morality more general. But if one or the other alternative is true, they are clear opposites of an argument. In addition to, Socrates wants a definition of the pious that can serve as a model for determining whether any act is pious or impious. Euthyphro never satisfies Socrates’ wishes. A person determines if an act is pious or impious by drawing upon Socrates’
knowledge. In conclusion, Plato’s Euthyphro is essential for examining the pious from the impious. The gods are not always in agreement, so the pious and impious are not always clear. The gods are not harmonious; therefore one cannot truly know what is pious or impious. Socrates is the master and originator of philosophy. He seeks to destroy the arguments of people with questions, like he did with Euthyphro. Euthyphro never comes to satiate Socrates’ desire for a deeper meaning of what is piety and impiety. Socrates therefore comes away with no true answer to his questions. Socrates is left to defend himself in court and does not gain any help from Euthyphro regarding the matter. Socrates does not believe that what is pious is pious because it is holy to the gods.
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
On the one hand, if there are others who interpret and mediate divine messages -then rationally- the question of Socrates’ impiety becomes absurd because he does nothing different by account of this logic. On the other hand, however, Socrates simultaneously calls into question the premise that informs rust in the divine; specifically, the “...dubious premise that no one could trust to anything expect a god to be able to trust that his predictions [are accurate]” (Pangle 118). Indeed, consider how Socrates affirmation that he is “more truthful and more pious” (13.3); he posits as evidence of this the fact that he has benefited those who seek his counsel by never having spoken falsely (13.9). If everyone can trust that Socrates’ are predictions are accurate and thereby repetitiously seek and trust in his counsel, then the aforementioned premise can easily/equally be attributed to Socrates, and his daimonion. Hence, whilst Socrates affirmation is informed by the very same premise that informs the Athenians’ trust in the conventional divine, an acceptance of that affirmation as proof of Socrates’ piety requires a critical questioning of both that very premise, and of Socrates’ actual belief in it.
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:
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.
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.
Euthyphro’s second definition of piety is “the pious is what the gods love”. Socrates takes this idea and
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...
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
As you can see, the way to approach the Euthyphro Dilemma is to show that it is false and that there is ultimately a better option: God’s nature is the standard of goodness. There are not two options, but three. In all, one should reject both that it is right because God commands it and God commands it because it is right. Whatever is “right” is good to the degree that it fulfills its purpose. Based upon God’s standard of goodness, this is true because He is the ultimate creator of everything. The Euthyphro Dilemma is not an atheistic view on religion or the existence of God by any means, but rather an issue for deeper thought. Overall, this leads us closer to believing in Christianity and more so, God Himself.
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
At the beginning of their conversation, Socrates is surprised whether Euthyphro has any idea what holiness is all about. Socrates asks his friend to provide him with the characteristics that holy things have in common not examples. The priest argues that sacred is whatever god’s love that but Socrates complicates everything by making the priest admit that gods do have disagreements. He concludes that some things can be both holy and unholy at the same time. From this little argument, Socrates assumes to be able to define what holiness,
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...