In the dialogue Euthyphro (Cahn and Markie), Plato presents an argument against the divine command meta-ethical theory. While the argument is presented against the predominantly pantheistic Greek religions, the argument can be easily applied to the monotheistic Abrahamic religions.
The dialogue starts off with the two main characters: Euthyphro and Socrates. Socrates has been indicted for corrupting the youth of Athens and Euthyphro is indicting his father for murdering a day-labourer who killed one of his servants through neglect. Socrates acknowledges that Euthyphro must be very knowledgeable on the subjects of piety and holiness which are integral to the Greek judicial system and that by learning from Euthyphro, Socrates might better
…show more content…
If this were the case, the gods would not be the ultimate source of what is holy, and thus not the source of moral authority. Since this is entirely in opposition to the divine command theory of meta-ethics, this cannot be the case, which leaves Socrates and Euthyphro with the idea that objects are holy because the gods love them.
It is at this point in the dialogue that Socrates turns the argument to justice. The claim is made that everything that is holy is just and everything that is just is holy; a claim with which Euthyphro again agrees. Socrates presents the following analogy: while we can be afraid of many things, and that fear can be shameful and that to be ashamed is to also be fearful, he asserts that being afraid doesn’t necessarily mean that one should ashamed of that fear – that fear is broader than shame. Socrates then applies this analogy to holiness and justice - that all things that are holy are just, but not all things that are holy are necessarily just: justice is thus broader than holiness. This suggests that there is a portion of justice that involves what is holy and another portion that is uninvolved with holiness.
When asked to differentiate between these two mutually exclusive components, Euthyphro says that the component of justice that is concerned with holiness is a matter of ministering to the gods and the component that is not concerned with holiness is ministering to people. This
The Euthyphro is an example of early dialogue of Plato's: it is brief, deals with a question in ethics, this is a dialogue which took place between Socrates and Euthyphro who claims to be an expert in a certain field of ethics, which ended prematurely. It is also puzzled with Socratic irony, the irony is present because Socrates is reckoning Euthyphro as the teacher when in fact Socrates is teaching Euthyphro. Socrates poses as the ignorant student wishing to learn from a supposed expert, when in fact he shows Euthyphro to be the ignorant one who knows nothing about the subject on which they are discussing, which is piety and impiety. This setup is necessary in order to encourage Euthyphro to bring forth and evaluate the arguments being formed by him, and thus to lead him to see their faults for himself.
People all the time get confused on what piety and justice means, and what the difference between the two are. Justice
At the core of Socrates’ argument is the need to break down the definition of holiness into smaller coherent characteristics. Socrates uses a series of question that are consistent with Euthyphro’s argument to ensure that he [Euthyphro] offers a consistent flow of definitions of the word holy.
In this interaction, Socrates considers Euthyphro to help in explaining all there is to be known about piety and the related impiety. Euthyphro confirms that he is indeed an expert in the matter relating to religious issues and can thus assist Socrates in the charges that face him. In their argument in the efforts to define the true meaning of piety, Socrates and Euthyphro engage in the analysis of issues that threaten to confuse human understanding about the whole issue of holiness and impiety in the society, (Plato & Gallop, 2008). To understand the true meaning of piety, it is of great importance to take a holistic analysis of the beliefs of the people about
In Plato's dialogue, 'Euthyphro', Socrates presents Euthyphro with a choice: `Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved [by the gods]?'
Socrates and Euthyphro cross paths one day at the courts of Athens. At the time, Euthyphro was there to prosecute his father for murder. Socrates takes the opportunity to ask Euthyphro what the meaning of piety is. In this paper, I exam the issue at hand, how Socrates uses his question to doubt Euthyphro’s thesis, and give an explanation as to what this question means for someone who maintains that God is the origin or foundation of morality.
Justice is a very important ruling power for both gods and mortals. For instance, in Sophocles' tragedy, Antigone,
The conflict between the Divine Command Theory and the Euthyphro objection come with questions about who sets the rules of morality, and how it can be assumed that these rules are justifiable. On one hand, the Divine Command Theory defends the idea that an act is morally right because God commands it and wrong because He commands against it. This sets God’s will as the foundation of ethics, making morally good actions those that comply with His commandments. This religion-based concept becomes problematic when it runs into the Euthyphro dilemma, founded from Plato’s Euthyphro dating back to 395 BC. The argument centralizes on why it is that God commands rightful actions, bringing in the question of, “Are moral acts commanded by God because they are morally good, or does God command things to be right because He has good reasons for them?” The Euthyphro argument creates its foundation on the idea that either God has reasons for His commands, or that He lacks reasons for them. This divides up the Divine Command Theory in two ways, either making the theory wrong or portraying God as an imperfect being. If God does have reasons for His commands, then these reasons are what would make the actions right or wrong. God’s reasons would stand as the basis of morality, instead of God’s commandment itself. God having reasons would insinuate that goodness existed before any direction from God because otherwise, there wouldn’t be any commandment. Morality would have to stand independent
Euthyphro intends his definition of piety. If right actions are pious only because the gods love them, then moral rightness is completely
“And is then all just pious? Or is all that is pious just, but not all that is just, but some of it is and some is not.” This is the question that Socrates asks Euthyphro at 12a. In Socrates search for truth he questions what part of piety belongs to justice or what part of justice belongs to piety. To clarify that there is a distinction Socrates uses a quote from a poet, “You do not wish to name Zeus, who had done it, and who made all things grow, for where there is fear there is also shame.”
In Euthyphro, Socrates is on his way to his trial for impiety when he runs into Euthyphro. Euthyphro is on his way to trial as well, but he is the prosecutor in his trial. He is trying his own father for the murder of a servant. Socrates asks him to teach him about what is holy so that he might be able to defend himself better. Socrates asks Euthyphro to teach him, but as you read you
was put on trail. On his way to his trial Socrates met a man named Euthyphro, a
He is old and come just to answer the indictment for impiety. On the other hand Euthyphro come to file the case agent his father murder. Euthyphro is young and priest, he thinks he has knowledge of divine things. When Socrates asked question about pious he just ends saying that any action that everything god love is same as pious. While Socrates asked definition of pious Euthyphro denied answering his question. This shows that Socrates has lots of question and answer and he is cleaver
Holiness is a central theme in the Socratic dialogue with Euthyphro. Socrates has taken up the ironic role of a student in the narrative as he attempts to gain knowledge of what holiness entails, from Euthyphro. Socrates meets with Euthyphro as they meet at a court in Athens. He seeks to gain knowledge on holiness, such that, he can use the insights in his trial against Meletus. Earlier, Meletus had charged him for impiety in a court. This justifies the importance that has been placed on the idea. In the ensuing dialogue, Euthyphro serves different definitions of holiness to Socrates. However, each of these is questioned, casting ambiguity over his supposed knowledge.
In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro had a conversation about piety. During the conversation, Socrates raised a question which was a challenge to the Euthyphro’s definition of piety. Also, this question is a challenge to the theists’ view of divine command theory. I agree with the arbitrariness objection which succeeds giving a good reason to theists to reject the divine command theory. This objection indicates that the arbitrariness of God’s commands contradicts to the fundamental attribute of God, and God’s commands are unable to make an act morally good or bad.