Philosophical Argument : Euthyphro And 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.

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.

Socrates helps Euthyphro to give meaning to the word ‘piety ', and this serves to bring a new meaning to the respect to the divine beings and help in the explanation of the whole context of the divinity in the society. In this manner, there is the need to create a clear definition and help Euthyphro in getting ideas that he can use to teach Socrates to answer the resulting question about the piety. This is to enable Socrates to have a string defense against the charge of impiety and help in tackling the challenges that he faces in the society. The story and the relationship between Socrates and Euthyphro arise when Socrates is called to court to answer to the charges of impiety by Meletus, (Plato et al, 1927). In the courts, Socrates meets Euthyphro, who comes to the courts to prosecute his father who is a murderer.

In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro have a battle concerning the definition of piety. Socrates questions Euthyphro on whether or not is possible to have an objective – definite – definition of a concept/object. This came to be known as Euthyphro’s Dilemma. This argument can be clarified as follows; “what is dear to the gods is pious, and what is not is impious”: if an object is God-love, than the object must be loved by all Gods; therefore, pious objects are those that are necessarily loved by all Gods. (10a). The dilemma emanates when one realizes it is God-loved if it is pious, and pious because it is God-loved; in this case, “piety” in itself would be considered irrational in its essence. In this following paper I will explain what can be learned about piety from reading Euthyphro.

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.

In this paper, I argue that, in Plato’s Euthyphro, Euthyphro’s defense of the view that his father is a murderer is not cogent enough to effectively prove his point. I will present the argument that Euthyphro spends more time talking about himself and his decision to prosecute his father than he does discussing the actual crime. I will then present the argument that Euthyphro does not use specific, factual evidence to bolster his judgement.

Socrates’s image in the two works differ firstly in his attitude towards knowledge and towards himself. A typical statement of Socrates, both in the Euthyphro and in other Plato’s works, is that he has no clear knowledge. He is different from the public because he knows that he does not know. Neither does he claim to teach or corrupt the young (Euthyphro, p.2

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 dialogue Euthyphro, Plato introduces the reader to the interlocutor Euthyphro, a dogmatically religious man who claimed to have great knowledge of the gods. Euthyphro used his understanding of pious and impious as an excuse to indict his father on murder charges. Socrates was interested in Euthyphro’s unshakable religious convictions but by using the Socratic method the reader slowly learns that Euthyphro has not truly delved into himself and examined his strong held beliefs. Plato holds Euthyphro up to the reader as an example and a warning, that even if one believes they are living a righteous life, if they never stop and look within themselves and self-examine their beliefs one can do irreparable harm to not only their soul but to

Euthyphro did not allow special affiliations to interfere with executing his responsibility; to which Socrates understood but did not agree with the answer that he had about piety. Euthyphro’s definition of piety merely presented a claim that a particular act is pious rather than a definition of what acts are pious. Socrates wanted to understand the form itself that made all pious actions pious. His assertion was that “everything that is to be impious presents us with one form or appearance insofar as it is impious”. Socrates analytically contradicted Euthyphro's suggestion that what makes right actions right is that the gods loves and approves of it. The problem that Socrates had with this suggestion was that since inquiries of right and wrong often created never-ending disputes, he felt that the gods were likely to cause problems among themselves about ethical matters just as often as we do, making some actions both right and

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

Plato's "Euthyphro" introduces the Socratic student both to the Socratic Method of inquiry and to, or at least towards, a definition of piety. Because the character of Euthyphro exits the dialogue before Socrates can arrive at a reasonable definition, an adequate understanding of piety is never given. However, what piety is not is certainly demonstrated. Euthyphro gives three definitions of piety that fail to mean much to Socrates, who refutes each one. In this paper, I will present Euthyphro's definitions along with Socrates' rebuttals. I will also show that Socrates goal in the dialogue is two-fold: 1) to arrive at a true definition, and 2) to exercise his method of teaching/inquiry. At the conclusion of this paper, I will give my own definition of piety and imagine what Socrates might say in response.

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 Dialogues, there is the singly ignorant person, the individual who is ignorant of some information or truth but who knows that he is ignorant, and the doubly ignorant person, the individual who is ignorant of his own ignorance. Socrates, in the Apology, maintains that he is singly ignorant when he states that the only thing he is that he knows nothing. The singly ignorant person is in a far better position to learn than the doubly ignorant person, because the singly ignorant person admits of his ignorance and can, if he desires, take the necessary steps to remove that ignorance. This is what Socrates does in his dialoguing, a.k.a. "teaching." He is attempting to remove his own ignorance, and in some cases (such as in Euthyphro) move the doubly ignorant person to a state of single ignorance. This paper will show in context the meaning of Socrates' "ignorance" in the Apology and how it relates to his search for the truth about piety in Euthyphro.

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.