Plato And The Euthyphro Dilemma

The Divine Command theory states that” an act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it.” (Lecture Notes pg. 42, slide #2.) This theory says that since God has said that it is something we must do to be good, that we must do it. Many religions believe and live by this saying that “it is the will of God or the Gods”. I truly believe that God has done his work and is still at work and since He did create us, He does know what good and evil is and does have authority to tell us what is good.

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

The Divine and Command Theory states that an action is right or wrong if God commands it. Divine Command Theorists would say that anything God commands is morally correct, but do not like the fact that cruelty or suffering could be morally right. They believe that any command God gives, He is commanding it because it is morally correct. Meaning that this is the better option for us, but this is where I

Divine command theory is a theory that believes that what is willed by God is morally right. Another portion of this is that in order for a belief to be morally right a knowledge of God is required. This knowledge of God being required can be seen as a weakness due to atheists and agnostics not being able to be morally right. Some of the more notable philosophers that brought about various forms of divine commandment Theory have been Saint Augustine, John Calvin, and William of ockham. A prime example of divine command theory in modern practice is The Ten Commandments among Christians. The Ten Commandments are from the Old Testament in the Bible and are a basic set of rules to follow. This basic set of rules that was set forth by the divine is commonly what this theory is based on.

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).

The Divine Command Theory is the assertion in ethics that an action is morally right if, and only if, it conforms to God’s will. This premise ties together morality and religion in a manner that seems expected, since it provides a solution to arguments about moral relativism and the objectivity of ethics. On the other hand, in Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates questions whether something is right because God commands it, or whether God commands it because it is right. The ethical implications of the Euthyphro problem suggest that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as straightforward as suggested by the Divine Command Theory.

In the Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro discuss the concept of piety/holiness. This essay will not only test my ability to recognize and engage philosophical concepts and analysis, but also brings me into the dialogue as a participant, asking me to create my own definition of holiness. I explain how the concept of holiness emerges in the dialogue and why it takes a prominent position in the conversation between Socrates and Euthyphro. I present the three definitions that Euthyphro uses in his response to Socrates, and then present Socrates’s refutation of each of Euthyphro’s definitions. I develop my own

Euthyphro intends his definition of piety. If right actions are pious only because the gods love them, then moral rightness is completely

Distinguished as one of the greatest reflective thinkers of all time, Plato was the innovator of many written philosophical dialogues. Accompanied by his teacher, Socrates and his most notorious disciple, Aristotle, Plato set the groundworks of Western philosophy and science amid dialogues such as Apology, Euthyphro, Republic and Laws. These dialogues provided some of the earliest handlings of political inquiries from a philosophical viewpoint. In the Euthyphro, Plato composes a dialogue that transpires in 399 BC, weeks before the hearing of Socrates, for which Socrates and Euthyphro try to determine an absolute meaning for the word “piety” also known as holiness. To enable the comprehension of the dialogue, this essay will restate the dialogue’s key claims through differentiating between the dialogue Euthyphro, which begins by probing for the definition of the good (a matter of epistemology) and the dilemma presented by Socrates within the dialogue (a matter of ontology). Furthermore, through recapitulating Euthyphros’ various endeavors in defining piety, the essay will contend that Plato utilizes diairesis in the dialogue (definition by division) to elucidate the nature of good. On this basis, the dialogue will exemplify the two conflicting views of religion made by both characters.

Divine Command Theory is a type of ethical relativism that states that morality is dependent on God’s will, and his will, and his way is holy, and will forever be no matter the situation. In other words as stated by Rachels, what God commands is what is morally right, and what God forbids is morally wrong (Rachels, 2001). Within this theory, it makes it known that morality cannot exist separately from God’s will.

& Jowett, 2013). Socrates refutes this definition since he views that the gods do not need to be assisted by mortals. In his final attempt, Euthyphro defines holiness as an exchange between the gods and human beings. The gods receive sacrifices from us, while we they grant our prayers in exchange. In response, Socrates posits that this perspective implies correlates to the prior argument on the gods’ approval. He states that if holiness is gratifying to the gods, it is ambiguous as seen in the argument concerning what the gods approve, and the influences behind them (Plato. & Gallop, 1997).

Religion and morality have been seen as inseparable since the advent of Western thought (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-morality/) - religion's fundamental characters being frequently ethical in nature, and morality often viewed as a derivative of religion. However, the relationship is not as clear cut as many people would like you to believe. A very old and important dilemma facing this relationship is the Euthyphro dilemma, discussed in Plato’s Euthyphro. In it, Socrates and Euthyphro argue about the nature of morality outside of a court. Socrates is being prosecuted for impiety, while Euthyphro is charging his father with murder. Although charging your father, even for murder, is frowned upon in Ancient Greek culture,

It is believed that the theological discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro is one of the most famous Socratic discussions. The discussion is focused on what is piety or holiness asked by Socrates. Socrates engages Euthyphro to help him understand what piety is as he admits he does not know, in order to help with his case against him.

6:18). We should not lie because the God don't lie. “God is love” (1 John 4:16), so we should “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:39). Furthermore, Ten Commandments are the Bible law that to prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, deception and adultery (Wikipedia, 2013). Taylor (1993), a naturalism, mentions that people know what is right and wrong "there are reasons for not stealing, there are reasons for not assaulting, and there are reasons for not lying. These things hurt people" is convention (formed by nature), it is not from God. William Craig (1993) argues that naturalist such as Taylor does not provide a basis for morality. "If naturalism is true, objective right and wrong does not exist." (William & Taylor, 1993). Craig believes that without God, there is no true right and wrong. If naturalism (Taylor) is right, then people cannot condemn crime or something immoral. “The decision to become a Mother Teresa rather than an Adolph Hitler is rather like the decision to go to McDonald’s rather than Burger King.” (Craig & Taylor, 1993) it is all your decision if there is no true right and wrong. Geisler (1999) stated “The principle of causality. Only being can cause being. Nothing does not exist, and only what exists can cause existence, since the very concept of “cause” implies an existing thing that has the power to effect another. From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing.” Therefore, most of objectivist argues