Euthyphro Vs Socrates

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.

In Plato 's Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro discuss the nature of piety. Euthyphro first proposed that piety is that which the gods love. His proposal was quickly objected by Socrates though, since the gods often disputed amongst themselves and therefore what one loves can be what another hates. Euthyphro then revised his hypothesis to say that piety is that which the gods love unanimously and for the moment this was their conclusion. This definition however, that piety is what the gods love unanimously, further proposed the question of whether the gods love the pious because it is pious or whether the pious is pious solely because the gods love it. If it is true that the gods love the pious because it is pious then the definition of

Greek philosopher Plato’s account of the end of fellow philosopher Socrates’ life in The Trial and Death of Socrates includes a plethora of philosophical theories and ideas, but the one that stands out the most is none other than what is known as the Euthyphro Paradox. Found in the “Euthyphro” section of the book, Socrates brings up the idea of what is actually considered pious, or moral, by asking what exactly makes those things pious in the first place. More specifically, Socrates asks Euthyphro: “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” (Plato 11).

Euthyphro is a young man who believes he is a master of democracy and that one should put democracy over everything else. He accuses and puts his father on trial for murdering a slave. Nevertheless, when Socrates asks Euthyphro what is pious, he cannot give an account for it. So, Socrates insists that Euthyphro teaches him what is holy and what is unholy. Socrates has Euthyphro agree with him that there must be one standard, by which everything holy is holy and everything unholy is unholy.

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.

Interpretive essay for Euthyphro Euthyphro, a priest in Plato’s dialogue, strives throughout the reading to teach his religion to Socrates. Since Euthyphro portrays himself to be the most intelligent human to mankind, Socrates believes that he must know every words meaning and that guides Socrates to ask him about a word he is curious about; piety. Piety is something he is very curious about and asks Euthyphro many questions about it. Euthyphro gives five intricate versions of piety, but one of them is peculiar and brings to my attention.

Euthyphro replies by saying that surely the gods agree that the unjust killing of a man is unholy and should be punished. Socrates refutes by saying that that is not what is in question and that yes they do agree on factual things. He says that the question is that they do not always agree with what is just and what is unjust, each has their own opinion, and if this is true that they must not agree. Socrates uses his method to get Euthyphro to question his decision on prosecuting his father. This leads Euthyphro to change his definition up yet again.

The story setting is at the court, where Socrates is going to defend himself from being accused of corrupting the youth and not worshipping the gods in the right way. Socrates meets Euthyphro who is famous for being able to tell the future. During the conversation, Socrates finds out that Euthyphro is here to prosecute his father for murder. Euthyphro said that Zeus killed his father, Cronus, for eating Zeus’s siblings, therefore; by prosecuting Euthyphro’s own father, he is doing the pious act. He also claims that he has the knowledge of the gods. Socrates asks Euthyphro to teach him what piety is. Euthyphro said, “what is loved by the gods is pious, and what’s not loved by the gods is impious.” Socrates is not happy with Euthyphro’s answer because it does not give the exact definition of what piety is. Moreover, during their conversation, they establish that the gods do disagree among each other, which means what is loved by one god may not be loved by another

Socrates isn’t satisfied with the definition as it only applies to one thing and not the form itself, subsequently Euthyphro gives him another one being “what’s loved by the gods is pious, and what’s not loved by the gods is impious.” (Morgan 38, 7a) At first it is clear, anything you do, whether in word or deed can be holy and good if the gods so approve of it. On the same note, anything you do that is disapproved by the gods such as murder, is impious. Socrates accepts this but then expands on the idea through dialectic. If humans can disagree on what is good/bad then the gods also disagree on what is good/bad. Meaning that maybe a god agrees that an adulterous woman should be punished by death while another god may agree that she was not in the wrong, it was the man’s fault therefore he should be punished. Some big ideas like this carry controversy in what is right and wrong to do for most people. One god could hate cheating women and the other could excuse them of their actions. Here Socrates finds a flaw in this definitions logic, how can one thing be determined as god-loved or god-hated if the gods cannot agree on that decision. Therefore there can be no piety as there is no ultimate conclusion on what is pious and impious because cheating cannot be both things at the same time.

Euthyphro asserts that holy acts can be the persecution of religious offenders, all the while he is standing in front of a man accused by Meletus for acts of impiety. He stated, “I say that piety means prosecuting the wrongdoer who has committed murder or sacrilege” (p.21). However, there are many holy deeds that does not include persecuting offenders. Euthyphro also states, to Socrates’ prodding, that what is pious is what the gods find agreeable- to which Socrates asserts the gods fight amongst themselves constantly. Like most human beings in an ethical dilemma, what some may agree is right or wise could be disagreeable to others. In the end, the dialogue’s functions, to promote questions among the masses, ends with a question; ‘Is piety sacrificing and praying to the gods so that they may trade back acts of kindness in gratitude?’ Socrates points out that a sacrifice to the gods would have to be approved by the gods, which is not a very good definition for holiness. Euthyphro leaves, unfulfilled in his vow to teach Socrates the essence of piety. However, the dialogue’s function has been

Euthyphro’s well-known impasse pertaining to the characteristic of piety is one of the many dialogues written by the Greek philosopher Plato detailing the pursuit for wisdom by his mentor, Socrates. This well-known impasse regarding the nature of piety presents the question of whether or not piety is an act or thing loved by the gods? Regardless if an act is considered right or wrong, the truth or a lie, just or unjust, and holy or unholy, all are the basis of contentious debates difficult within society. Finding common ground within these oppositions can be challenging because of the diversity of cultural, religious, and moral values, and beliefs in society. Such is the situation with Socrates and Euthyphro.

In the Euthyphro, many traits and tactics of Socrates are revealed. His conversation with Euthyphro also reveals his outlook on religion and emphasizes the Socratic method. The reading starts with Euthyphro questioning Socrates about his trial and who has convicted him. It is a man named Meletus who accuses Socrates “of being a poet or maker of gods...and that I make new gods and deny the existence of old ones.

essence or definition] of holiness”. At this point Euthyphro is lost and they agree to not "quarrel" about “what is "dear/loved" by the gods or not”. Socrates try to have Euthyphro explain to him the relationship of piety to justice.

Socrates was a moral philosopher who was accused of impiety and was about to be tried for a crime, the nature of which no one seemed to understand. The trial and death of Socrates has four dialogs known as the Euthyphro, the Apology, the Crito, and the Phaedo which describes the process of Socrates’ controversial and insightful trial that raises the questions about human morality. Within the story we learned that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as clear-cut as some might think, Socrates forces the witnesses of his trial as well as ourselves to come to conclusions which result in a paradox that conflicts with the individual beliefs of his audience. In the event in which, Socrates poses a question to himself and Euthyphro, an attempt to answer the question "What is piety?" It has a specific tie to the events in “The Trial and Death of Socrates”, for Socrates had been accused of impiety and was about to be tried for the crime of heresy. The Euthyphro dialogue was written twenty-four centuries ago, and its conclusion is devastating for the whole idea that holiness and morality are very well connected. The idea that, “if God does not make something good by commanding it, but rather instead identifies that which is good, what measurement of morality does he use to make this judgment?” If something is right because god commands it, then it follows that something would be just as right if God instructed differently. If god declares that it is right to

Throughout the essay Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro are in disagreement as to “the nature of the holy,” what the holy and unhloly are. Socrates states, “Out with it now, and tell me what the holy and unholy are” (12, 11b9-10). He then once again states, “So, once again, what are you saying that the holy and unholiness is?” (15, 14c8-9). Socrates is seeking a universal definition against which all actions can be measured, the essence of the thing in question; in this situation it would be “what the holy and unholy are” (12, 11b9-10).