Socrates : The Worst Of Villains

Socrates said, “…where there is piety there is also justice, but where there is justice there is not always piety, for the pious is a part of justice. Shall we say that, or do you think otherwise?” (Socrates, 15). Euthyphro agrees and then suggests that piety is simply taking care of the gods: “I think, Socrates, that the godly and pious is the part of the just that is concerned with the care of the gods, while that concerned with the care of men is the remaining part of justice” (Euthyphro, 16). Socrates quickly rejects this on the basis that “taking care” of the Gods would be concerned with making the Gods “better”. Socrates uses the example of caring for animals to illustrate his point. He said, “So dogs are benefitted by dog breeding, cattle by cattle raising, and so with all the others. Or do you think that care aims to harm the object of its care?” (Socrates, 17). Euthyphro objects and says that these acts aim to benefit these animals. So Socrates says, “Is piety then, which is the care of the gods, also to benefit the gods and make them better? Would you agree that when you do something pious you make some of the gods better?” (Socrates, 17). Euthyphro claims that "caring for the gods" involves the kind of care that “slaves take of their masters” (Euthyphro, 17). When questioned by Socrates as to exactly what is the definition of piety using this logic, Euthyphro can only return back to his earlier claim: piety is what is loved by all the gods. “I say that is a man knows how to say and do what is pleasing to the gods at prayer and sacrifice, those are pious actions such as preserve both private houses and public affairs of state. The opposite of these pleasing actions are impious and overturn and destroy everything” (Euthyphro,

Euthyphro claims that "what is pleasing to the gods is pious, and what is not pleasing to them is impious," (p. 7-9) as a second attempt for a definition of piety. Socrates asks for a continuation of this definition describing a situation where just as men have differences in opinion so do the gods. Opinions differ in many categories like good and evil or even hot and cold. There is a continuum between these two extremes and each person, or god, can have their own personal subjective view. It is the argument of good and evil that prolong a disagreement. It is when the gods are in disagreement with each other over the argument of good and evil that makes this definition incomplete. Thus, what one god thinks is pious may not be pious to another god. Socrates reminds Euthyphro that though all the gods may agree in the fact that Euthyphro's father killing someone is evil it does not mean that what is pleasing to the gods is pious.

Euthyphro’s first definition of piety was; “Piety means prosecuting the unjust individuals who has committed murder or sacrilege, or any other such crime, as I am now, whether he is your father or mother or whoever he is. (5d). In this dialogue, Euthyphro is attempting to assure Socrates that piety means to prosecute the wrong perpetrator, in this case and in the case of Zeus, his father. This is just an example; Socrates wanted a definition, not a pious action. Definition one is inconsistent with the question because nothing has been acceptable in all similar cases, so we can’t use this definition as what piety is. But what we

Plato’s Euthyphro demonstrates Socrates searching for a definition of what piety is so that he can prove that he is not impious. Through the dialogue with Euthyphro, Socrates using his typical mannerisms refutes each response through questioning to prove that what piety is hard to define and in fact one consistent definition is unattainable. The argument that holds the most weight is when Euthyphro suggests the being pious is God loved while impious is God Hated. Socrates infers “…different sets of Gods, too, consider different things to be just, or fine or shameful, or good or bad…”(Morgan 2005, 39) ultimately concluding that some Gods love the things that others Gods hate, therefore that being impious and pious are the same thing, and that he cannot be one and not the other. Based on the discussion the conclusion Socrates draws is accurate however does not prove his innocence but shows that Euthyphro is unable to define what piety is. Socrates is aware that through his questioning this will be the outcome, his purpose is rather to provoke thought in Euthyphro’s mind, and engage him in thinking what is just or unjust, and that because he cannot provide a concrete definition then perhaps he is not qualified to decide.

Socrates meets Euthyphro outside of the courthouse and begin discussing the nature of impious and pious acts. Euthyphro claims to be an expert on these matters so he agrees to help Socrates understand piety better. Euthyphro’s first definition is “the pious is to do what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer, be it about murder.”(5d) Socrates objects to this saying that this would only counts as an instance of piety, and he is more interested in a universal element of all pious acts. Euthyphro elaborates to say that piety is what all the gods love, and impiety is what all the gods hate. (6e) Socrates rebukes that there are matters that some of the gods love, while other gods may hate. Socrates objects saying that gods disagree on issues, and that

Socrates is about to enter the courthouse to be indicted for the charges I listed in the beginning when he runs into Euthyphro. Beginning at 4a we see that Euthyphro happens to be there to prosecute his father for murder because he claims that it is the pious thing to do. Following from 4b through 5d Euthyphro claims to have remarkable and noteworthy knowledge of what is pious and impious. Socrates agrees that this must be true because obviously Euthyphro would not take the risk of prosecuting his own father if he were not absolutely certain that it was the pious thing to do. At this point in the discussion, Socrates insists that Euthyphro bestow upon him his knowledge of piety. Euthyphro agrees to do just that, and his first response when Socrates asks him to explain piety is to give an example of a pious action, namely the action of persecuting one’s father for his wrongdoing like Euthyphro is doing. Socrates then states that this is just an example of piety, and he expresses that he does not want examples of various actions that are considered to be pious because they do not give an account of what piety itself is. Socrates is looking for the universal form, or the definition, of piety, at 6e (2-4) he says he wants the definition because it is universal and can be used as a model for determining if any action in any situation is pious or not, whereas examples cannot show things about anything other than the

What are Euthypho’s definitions of piety? #1 is Euthyphro offers as his first definition of piety what he is doing now, prosecuting his father for manslaughter. Then Socrates rejects this because it is not a definition; it is only an example or instance of piety. It doesn’t provide the correct characteristic which makes pious. #2 is of piety pleasing any of the Gods. Socrates criticizes it on the grounds that the gods disagree among themselves as to what is pleasing. Now Socrates would be both pious and impious at the same time a logically impossible situation. Socrates argues would still happen over just how much the justification there actually was. So Euthyphro tries to argue against Socrates's criticism by pointing out that not even any of the gods would disagree amongst themselves to cause disruption. In all for number 2, it wasn’t actually a definition. #3 Euthyphro attempts to overcome Socrates's objection by slightly fixing his second definition. Now the

Socrates believes that the definition cannot be contradictory because it makes it illogical. Euthyphro gave the example of Zeus who had punished Cronos, his father, for devouring his sons, and Uranus, Cronos’s father, was penalized by Cronos for the same reasons Zeus persecuted his father.8 To Socrates, this argument cannot stand since we have established that the gods do not agree; should we follow Zeus or Cronos actions as examples for piety? Socrates also brings to Euthyphro’s attention that the gods do not just differ on mundane opinions, but fundamental issues. “What is loved by the gods is also hated by them “9; since the gods fight and harm each other because of differences in ideology we know that the gods have contradictory views on good and evil, and just and unjust. 9 How do we know what is pious through what is dear to the gods if the gods have conflicting views on what is dear to

Socrates contrasts his position of authority drastically between his argument over piety in Euthyphro and his reasoning for staying in jail in Crito. At first, Socrates does not agree with the notion that pious actions can be easily determined by mortals and questions Euthyphro's knowledge of religion. However, Socrates begins to hold the law of Athens in such a devoted manner that he would be willing to not escape prison in order to obey. In Euthyphro, Socrates disproves Euthyphro's initial argument on the definition of piety as any concept that is agreeable to all the gods. Socrates asserts that this cannot be right since the gods have different opinions and argue all the time: “And do you really believe that the gods fought with one another,

In Socrates’s Euthyphro the conception of piety, and his knowledge of it, comes from Euthyphro’s teachings. Socrates challenges Euthyphro’s knowledge of piety, and how he will defend himself on trial against Meletos accusations. Starting a path of righteousness in Meletos perspective, he’s actually causing more harm to his people. Socrates tries to understand Euthyphro’s definition of piety through his Socratic Method. He goes further on to understand his own meaning of the relationship between god and humans. Euthyphro goes on to teach Socrates of piety; Socrates realizes he (Euthyphro) doesn’t know much of it. Socrates goes on to define his conception of piety. Socrates goes on to ask if piety is real or constructed, I would have to agree with this “actions good only because the appropriate authorities recognize them as good” seems to be true to human nature.

Some persons may claim that Socrates’ demise made him appear as a martyr, and I disagree with that statement. Socrates 's beliefs were not intended to create a sensation of compassion or stimulate pity from the crowd. Socrates is actually just speaking in his usual tone. Moreover, it is also interesting how he has three children, but he does not reference his kids at all or that he is a father. If Socrates had talked about his kids, then that would have enthused up sympathy. However, that is not Socrates’ objective -- he simply does not request for the court’s forgiveness. He just explains why he is virtuous in depth, but he does not do so because of the idea of death. He says it because of his strong stance on his beliefs and his

Euthyphro finally gets to his first definition of piety; he claims that which is pious is that which is loved by the Gods. Socrates reminds Euthyphro that the Gods may disagree on certain

When evaluating the reasoning behind the arguments of Socrates trial, one can interpret that Socrates was accused of undoubtedly failing to honor the Athenian gods and for corrupting the youth of Athens; overall, one can say that Socrates was condemned on the whole basis of his beliefs and teachings of questioning authority and life as it was back then known to be (his). In Socrates defense, he deeply expressed the spirited purpose of his integrity; nevertheless, he at the same time- without a fight, accepted his verdict and faith of his ending future (his). Although

Socrates’ trial and consequent death sentence was an unfair decision that reflected the intolerance of the Greek world, specifically that in Athens, during the period of scientific backlash. Socrates was a philosopher whose progressive ideas placed him far ahead of his time. Aristophane’s The Clouds, which parodied Socrates, was published at unfortunate time that gave fire to the growing hatred of the philosopher and his work greatly influenced the jury’s decision. It seems odd that this took place in Athens, the society that has come to symbolize democracy and free-thought, because through a historicist lens, persecuting a man who was found guilty of superfluous charges, all of which he denied his guilt, is a definite societal step backward and greatly contradicts what Athens is lauded for.

Socrates believes that a prince ought to be a citizen philosopher who sets the example for all citizens through his/her character. Socrates posits to his friend Crito that “the considerations you [Crito] raise about expense and reputation and bringing up children… are the concerns of the ordinary public, who think nothing of putting people to death, and would bring them back to life if they could, with equal indifference to reason” (Crito 87). This “indifference to reason” that Socrates claims about the public amounts to an indictment of the leadership in Athens at the time. This excerpt shows how the princes who ruled Athens, who acted unjustly, who created the institutional climate of execution and fear (which Socrates is a victim of), transferred these ways of thinking and acting to the people of Athens. Socrates then paints a picture instead of how a prince should act, and what their role should be by describing his own work: “I busied myself all the time on your behalf, going like a father or an elder brother to see each one of you privately, and urging you to set your thoughts on goodness” (The Apology 57b). This encompasses his role as a citizen philosopher when he served in the Athenian government before the Spartans toppled the democratic regime. He acted with the virtues of compassion, generosity, and faith, instead of the Machiavellian virtues of prowess, deceit, and cruelty. In this matter, he was both a just leader and a philosopher, setting the standards for