Is An Action Loved By The Gods?

Socrates point on justice is that everything that is termed just ought to be entirely holy. On the other hand, not everything that is deemed holy is just. However, the term just is used interchangeably with the term morally good. I think Socrates point is to find enough proof to support any premise beyond reasonable doubt.

Despite his emphasis of justice as a function of the perfect state, Socrates also deals with justice as a personal virtue. He finds that there is a parallel between the organization of the state and the individual. Just as there are three virtues other than justice, Socrates finds three parts in the individual soul: Sensation, emotion, and intelligence. The just person then must have balance between these aspects. Each must function in moderation to contribute to the health of the whole. Appetite and sensation are matters of desire. Desire must be subordinate to reason, or else they will throw the

While stating these reasons, Socrates was looking at it from the perspective of the state. He explained these reasons as if he was talking to the state, discussing why it is important to obey the law. Neglecting and disobeying that law is unfavorable because you agreed not to. Breaking a just law is problematic.

Q11. How does Socrates derive the conclusion that “the same things then are loved by the gods and hated by the gods”? Is this a correct deduction from the statements Euthyphro previously agreed to?

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]?'

Therefore, appealing to action does not clarify what constitutes piety. Moreover one god may perceive Euthyphro’s action as just, while another deplores is as unjust. Another proposition is that piety is what is universally loved by the gods, and impiety is what is universally hated by the gods. However, is the particular action pious because it is loved by the gods or loved by the gods because it is pious? Is piety intrinsically virtuous or virtuous because external praise by the gods? Socrates poses a remarkably timeless question. For example, is it unjust to kill Syrians because human life has intrinsic value, or is it unjust to kill by consensus? Is there an objective moral duty to preserve human life, or is the value of life merely dependent on social

Socrates' belief was that he was called on by the Gods to live his life examining others and himself. He believed the necessity of doing what one thinks is right even in the face of universal opposition, and the need to pursue knowledge even when opposed. "I became completely convinced, to the duty of leading the philosophical life by examining myself and others."¹ Socrates believed that to desert this idea was ridiculous and would make his life absurd. Socrates chose to live a life of truth and not to worry about things that did not matter. For Socrates not to live his life by the plans and requests of Gods it would be disobedient and untrue to the Gods. Socrates was brought to court to defend

In Plato’s Apology of Socrates, Socrates defies the legislative authority of Athens by refusing to stop philosophizing, which he justifies in the name of reason. Socrates’s argument in favor of philosophizing is based on what he believes is human nature or the gods’ will, which is demonstrated when he states, “I will obey the gods rather than you; and as long as I breathe and am able to, I will certainly not stop philosophizing…” (Plato’s Apology of Socrates, 81). Socrates goes on to claim that his actions are just because he is seeking virtue and ultimately, happiness, and “how [the] soul will be the best possible” (Plato’s Apology of Socrates, 81). He argues that it is human nature to philosophize and this is how humans reach their ultimate fulfillment and happiness, and anything that interferes with that pursuit of happiness is by definition unjust. When Athens orders Socrates to stop philosophizing, they are interfering with his pursuit of happiness and thus, the law is unjust and can be disobeyed.

In Plato’s “Apology” and “Crito”, I believe Socrates’ philosophy of not doing harmful things on purpose, because of ignorance, or the act of doing it unwillingly, is false. First I will show you some contradictions introduced in the books of the Apology, and Crito and explain them. Next, I will explain how in the present day Socrates philosophy is false due to the vices of mankind, with evidence from the Apology, then I will show you how Socrates might argue his point and a counter argument in present day, and finally I will conclude that Socrates’ philosophy is an incorrect philosophy and has many holes within it.

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.

I am now going to defend Socrates position with my own thoughts and opinions along with

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

In the discussion of what is and is not just, Socrates first forms the opinion that justice is something

He claimed that all wrong is only done out of ignorance and not from the purpose to do evil. This view appears controversial because people are known to occasionally commit actions that are seemingly evil either out of self-interest or acting on impulse, against their best. However, when we look at the philosophy of human behaviours and motivation, Socrates' opinion begins to make more sense. Socrates affirmed that all human actions were prompted by self-interest. For these reasons, Socrates’ belief is played on in the modern world.

Another objection, brought about by a radical and different theory of Justice is brought up by Plato in a conversation between Socrates and Thrasymachus. In this argument Thrasymachus defines justice as in the interest of the stronger. This basically means that justice belongs in the hands of the rulers, and that the rulers are whoever is stronger, therefore getting to a ruling position. Laws are then made, based on the ruling party’s interest, and only theirs. Those who violate such created laws, will get punished for breaking the law and so on and so forth. Socrates completely disagrees with this theory of justice and gives the analogy of a physician who is studying and exercising his power is in fact doing so in the interest of his patients, not himself. In