Aristotle Piety

Throughout the dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates, they both try to come up with an understanding of the relationship between piety and justice. Within the discussion, Socrates questions Euthyphro to see if he can define the difference and similarities between justice and piety, and if they interact with each other. Eventually, Euthyphro and Socrates came up with the conclusion that justice is a part of piety. This is the relationship that I agree most with because in my own opinion, I believe that all of the gods and people agree that human beings who commit unjust actions need to be punished for their actions.

The main question of this dialogue is the definition of the word holy or piety. Euthyphro brags that he is more knowledgeable than his father on matters relating to religion. In this case, Socrates suggests to Euthyphro to define that term. The first definition fails to satisfy Socrates because of its limitation in application. Apparently, Socrates perceives this definition as an example rather than a definition. Subsequent arguments and line of questioning lead to five sets of definitions that are refined to find the general definition. Socrates expects that the acceptable general definition of the question will act as a reference point in his defense.

If it were the exact definition, only Euthyphro would be pious. He said that Euthyphro did not understand the difference between a definition and an example. Next, Euthyphro says that piety is found in things that are dear to the gods (7a). Socrates again rejected Euthyphro’s definition of piety. The Greek gods were anthropomorphic; therefore, another may despise what would be dear to one god. This definition offered was not distinct. Finally, Euthyphro said that what is pious is what loved by the gods (9e). However, Euthyphro can’t answer whether something is pious because it is loved or it is loved because it is pious. He can’t conceive the difference between cause and effect. It is in the Euthyphro that Socrates begins his defense of his actions and principles to the reader. A priest can’t give him a concise answer as to what is religious; therefore, how can anyone else, especially one less religiously guided than a priest, accuse him of blasphemous actions?

However in Plato’s Euthyphro, it can be argued that Socrates plays a similar role. In the Euthyphro, Socrates discusses piety in general and what makes things and people pious. Socrates claims he wants to learn more on the subject so that he may better defend himself against the treasonous charges against him. In a way, Euthyphro represents the traditional Athenian way of thinking. He believes in and supports all of the gods and does not submit to Socrates’ prodding of the subject, although he does walk away from him in frustration at the end of the dialogue. However it can safely be said that most Athenians would agree with Euthyphro’s opinion of the gods and to disagree could most certainly be punishable by law, as Socrates was. Socrates’ search for the definition of piety is a difficult one that tests Euthyphro’s patience and ultimately leaves the characters and the reader without an answer. Every time Euthyphro proposes an answer, Socrates is quick to counter it with some thought. Interpreting Socrates’ tone and meaning here is important. Some may see Socrates to be quite demeaning in these instances, almost teasing Euthyphro because he claims to be so pious yet he cannot even define the word. In this way, similar to Aristophanes’ Clouds, Socrates plays a subversive role in the Euthyphro.

A9: Socrates believes that the first definition piety given by Euthyphro is very vague; Euthyphro has only given an example of what piety is (his current action in prosecuting his father) not a definition. Socrates wants Euthyphro to be more specific in what he defines as piety.

According to Euthyphro, piety is whatever the gods love, and the impious whatever the gods hate. At first this seems like a good definition of piety, however, further inquiry from Socrates showed that the gods have different perspectives vis a vis certain actions. As the gods often quarrel with another, piety cannot simply be what is loved by gods, since they differ in opinions. For, if the gods agreed on what is just, surely they would not constantly fight with one another. Therefore, the first proposition of Euthyphro is wanting. Socrates, thus, is teaching a particular style of inquiry whereby, facile statements are challenged by their own propositions. Socrates does not make any claims initially, but rather questions the logical consequence of Euthyphro’s answer.

Socrates uses a cause and effect method throughout the argument. As Socrate is asking Euthyphro to approve along the way down his points he gets certainly confused. Ending their argument with a point that, piety and what is pleasing to the gods are simply not the same. By the end of the argument Euthyphro is contradicted and can no longer identify what he thinks. Socrates makes a point of the difference of a fact and an opinion. The definition of a moral quality is not a matter of what people think. You cannot determine what goodness, or piety is by asking people around you. Consequently, whether something or someone has a given moral quality is also not a matter of their opinion. Whether an act or a person is good, or pious, for example, is not to be settled by a

The question that arises as Euthyphro encounters Socrates at the court of Athens is that of piety. Socrates questions Euthyphro by asking “Is it pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” (Euthyphro, 10a2). This question comes about through the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro in regards to the prosecution of Euthyphro’s father due to a crime he committed. This discussion ultimately ends in the departure of Euthyphro due to not being able to come up with a definition that satisfied Socrates.

pious actions” (Grube 6d). Socrates wants Euthyphro to give a wide definition of piety, saying “Tell me then what this form itself is” (Grube 6e) that makes all pious actions pious.

As one reads though the translations of Aristotle’s thoughts, you begin to realize the complexity, yet the common sense of his work. Modern day people have a goal in life, to achieve a certain amount of success and to live life relatively happy. Most agree that to get to that goal, the populous must conform and participate

Socrates says "you did not teach me adequately when I asked you what the pious was, but you told me that what you are doing now, prosecuting your father for murder is pious (Plato, 10) Socrates wants to know what piety is "through one form" (Plato, 10). He does not want to know which things or actions are pious, but rather what piety itself is. One cannot simply define something by giving examples so this definition does not satisfy Socrates.

Aristotle believes that there are two kinds of virtue, one being intellectual and the other being moral virtue. He states that Intellectual virtue comes from being taught meaning we’re not born with it. Moral virtue on the other hand we develop as we grow and gain an understanding of life. “The stone which by nature moves downwards cannot be habituated to move upwards, not even if one tries to train it by throwing it up ten thousand times” (N.E. II.1) Right there he is talking about how if you are designed to do one thing, it is impossible to do the opposite no matter how hard you force it. He talks about how we gain our virtues by practicing them and using them on a regular basis. That is how we learn

Lastly in terms of his understanding of causation, the final cause of a thing or object was its purpose (telos). The purpose of the statue is aesthetic in that it is admired; the purpose of my laptop is to help me do my work well. Aristotle uses the example of health being the cause of walking, 'Why does one walk?' he asks, 'that one may be healthy'. This is perhaps the most important of all the causes. Yet his understanding does not end here. Once something has achieved a state of actuality it is also in a state of potentiality. In this sense we can see that Aristotle saw that the universe was moving constantly between ‘potentiality’ to ‘actuality’ back to ‘potentiality’ once again. This idea required Aristotle to explain things further still because in order for this theory to work it must explain everything in the universe, including the universe itself.

The subject which the question focuses on is the view of Aristotle’s ideal state. The distinction between hierarchy and equality is at the heart of the understanding of Aristotle’s ideal state. He claims that an ideal state ought to be arranged to maximise the happiness of its citizens. So happiness together with political action is the telos of human life. This end can be reached by living a better ethical life. However, he endorses hierarchy over equality. On one hand we have the equality which benefits everyone; on the other hand we have the distinction of classes meant in terms of diversities and differences where the middle one appears to be the means through which the state is balanced. Furthermore what is clear for Aristotle is that

As Aristotle saw his general surroundings, he watched that things are moving and changing in certain ways. Aristotle found that specific things cause different things, which thusly bring about something else. Aristotle trusted that a boundless chain of causation was unrealistic, subsequently, a prime mover or some likeness thereof should exist as the main source of everything that progressions or moves.