The Between Morality And The Gods

Studying the fourth relationship, Socrates and Euthyphro go into detail on how the came up with this interpretation, all just actions are pious. Using the same example, charity, works for this relationship because it is a just and a pious action at the same time. There are multiple ways to determine why this relationship can be incorrect. Holding the door open for a stranger is a just action, but is not pious. Therefore, holding the door open for a stranger is not just, which does not make sense. There is also another more significant reason on why the fourth relationship will not work. The fourth relationship allows there to be pious actions that can be unjust. For instance, killing innocent children because “the gods” intend this to happen does not make this relationship true. If you have a pious action that allows unjust actions, then there is no justice. Towards the end of 8-d, Socrates asked, “Do not all the gods have the same experience, if indeed they are at odds with each other about the just and the unjust, as your argument maintains? Some assert that they wrong one another, while others deny it, but no one among gods or men ventures to say that the wrongdoer

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 Plato’s Euthyphro, a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, the nature of piety is discussed. Euthyphro proposes several “definitions” of piety and focuses on the relation of piety to the gods. For one of these definitions, he proposes that piety is that which is loved by all the gods. In reply to this, a dilemma arises; and Socrates asks whether the pious, or holy, is loved by the gods because it is pious, or pious because it is loved by the gods. A similar form of this question asks whether the Good, or good action, is commanded by God because it is good, or good because it is commanded by God. If Euthyphro accepts the

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

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 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]?'

When Socrates asked Euthyphro what the meaning of piety is, Euthyphro tells him that, “piety is what the gods love.”(Shafer-Landau 57). This answer leads Socrates into asking, “are acts pious because the gods love them, or do the gods love actions because they are pious?”(Shafer-Landau 57). The issue at hand is Socrates is merely trying to determine exactly what determines if acts are pious or not pious and if there is any relation to the gods. Socrates question is important because if the gods aren’t what determines if acts are pious or not, then there would be no proof as to what is pious and what isn’t. This would mean that each person would have their own justification as to what is right or wrong.

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

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

In my opinion, I think that the Euthyphro dilemma only proposes two options when there is clearly three. As stated earlier there is the restricted theory, unrestricted, and also the option that is the fact that good is based on Gods nature. Since God is good, just, and righteous and since we are made in his image it would only make sense that he o appeals to his own character for the standard of what is good and bad. Therefor he reveals what is good to us. He shows us what is right and wrong through his actions. God does not command that lying is wrong. It is wrong because God is incapable of lying, not because he had to discover that lying was wrong, and not

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

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

& 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).

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.

Throughout the history of the world, people have been concerned with what it is to live a moral life. Many answers have been put forth for this question, but the best by far is found in the Christian Bible. This is because the Bible is a revelation from the Creator. While people can grope in the dark to find answers to moral questions by looking at natural law, they are always frustrated because the real nature of the world we live in is fallen and corrupt. We have an adversary who tries to deceive us and minds that are easily deceived. Even at our most rational, we make mistakes in logical inference, and need to be corrected. In this paper, we will look at biblical ethics in terms of meta-ethics, deontology, virtue theory, and