Euthyphro's Argument Analysis

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

Q9. What is Socrates’ objection to the first definition of piety that Euthyphro has proposed?

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

What is the Euthyphro Dilemma or Problem? How is it resolved? First, Socrates encounters Euthyphro outside the court of Athens, where he was called upon to be charged with impiety by Meletus, which is the lack of being religious towards god. On the other end, Euthyphro was present at court that day to prosecute his own father for accidentally murdering an innocent slave worker, by throwing him in a ditch. Socrates believes Euthyphro must know what is right from wrong, if he is responsible for the prosecution of his own father.

This leads to the dilemma or the main question asked by Socrates which is “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods (Plato, Euthyphro)” Or in other words does God say things are morally right because they are by nature, or do they become morally right because God says they should be. Since Euthyphro believed in more that one god, that meant that they were all pleased in different ways and that there would be no possible way that something could be defined as pious or impious. With that being said there is no way to declare something right or wrong.

The Trials and Death of Socrates by Plato is known for the “Euthyphro Paradox” because it talks about one of man kinds age old questions about god and morality. In this essay I will addressing the paradox along with my opinion on what I think Socrates would have done if he was in Euthyphro’s shoes. Euthyphro decided to put his father up for trial because he is wrongdoer and killed a man. Socrates talks with Euthyphro for some time about his case, but he never says which side he’s on. This is going to be the objective of this essay is to figure out what Socrates would have done.

In the book, The Trail and Death of Socrates Euthyphro, a priest, tries to define the meaning of piety to Socrates. Euthyphro claims to be an expert in ethics, but to the readers surprise we find out that Euthyphro is in fact ignorant and knows nothing about holiness. The story begins when Socrates and Euthyphro meet outside the court of Athens. Euthyphro is going to prosecute against his father for accidently killing a murderous slave. Euthyphro asks what Socrates is doing there and he answers saying he has been brought to court on charges of impiety by Meletus. Socrates is shocked that he is willing to prosecute his own father. Surely he must know everything there is to know about what is holy. So Socrates ask Euthyphro to explain to him

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

making some actions both right and wrong. Socrates lets Euthyphro off the hook on this one by agreeing with him, but only for purposes of

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

In the Euthyphro, Euthyphro himself gives three proposals of piety. First, the pious is to prosecute the wrongdoer and the impious is not to prosecute the wrongdoer. Socrates disputes this example as lacking generality. He believed that in order to define piety, one had to find the form that made all pious acts pious. An example of a pious act does not in turn define piety. Euthyphro’s second attempt stated that the pious is loved by the gods, while the impious was hated by them. Again, Socrates objects, saying that although it passed the generality requirement, there was no conformity among the objects dear to the gods. After all, the gods had different opinions as did humans. Euthyphro then

The Euthyphro Dilemma is a very interesting dilemma, the basis of it is that it deals with the concept of pious(doing something in the name of gods/God), is something considered being pious if it's loved by the gods/God or is it loved by the gods/God because it's pious? This is a dilemma because can it brings up who decides what is righteous and what is not righteous. Do the gods define what is righteous, if so what god, it can't be all since the clearly disagree with each other. “And do you believe there is really a war amongst the gods, with terrible feuds, even,and battles and many other such things, such as are recounted by the poets and the holy artists, and that have been elaborately decorated for us on other sacred

In his work Euthyphro, Plato introduces a religiously based moral code. This code, the divine command theory, stresses the pleasing of god in one’s moral actions. Plato’s characters, Euthyphro and Socrates, take turns in a debate defending and criticizing this theory. Its flawed nature is uncovered and we as readers are able to notice its advantages and disadvantages. Using these criticisms, revisions to the divine command theory have been made. After analyzing the divine command theory and noting both its advantages and its critiques, I largely agree with the criticisms that are made about it. However, with certain revisions, it can be transformed into a reliable and successful philosophy.

In Plato’s early dialogue, Euthyphro, features Socrates and Euthyphro, a religious expert, attempting to define piety or holiness. The argument of the dialogue is largely based on “definition of division.” Socrates wants Euthyphro to give him a universal definition of piety that will be universal true. In the first definition Euthyphro offers an example of piety, but Socrates refuses to accept it because it is not a definition, but an instance of piety.