The Dilemma Of The Euthyphro Dilemma

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.

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 Euthyphro, Socrates discusses with Euthyphro about what the “piety” is. The conversation leads to what most modern philosophers now define as Euthyphro’s dilemma. It is stated that” Is something pious because the gods love it or the gods love it because it is pious?” This dilemma is also known as the “Divine Command Theory”, which has puzzled many Christian philosophers throughout the years. Socrates’ account seems to disagree with Euthyphro’s. This paper will argue against the dilemma in Socrates’ account.

In 6-8 pages address the following issues and questions: What are the main definitions of piety that Euthyphro and Socrates consider? (There are at least three.) Which of the definitions of piety offered in the Euthyphro do you think is the most plausible? Why? Explain the meaning and significance of the dilemma Socrates poses at 10a1-3 is the pious loved by the gods because its pious or is it pious because its loved (on pg. 40; cf. Rachels and Rachels, pg. 50-53). How do you think the relationship between ethical norms and God’s commands should best be understood from a Christian perspective?

The central theme of one of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Meno, is to find an answer to the question, “can virtue be taught?” Before answering this question for Meno, Socrates first wants to define virtue because he does not know how one can decide if something can be taught, when one does not technically know what that thing is. Throughout their discussion, they decide on various definitions of virtue, but never decide on one that actually makes sense. The dialogue concludes with Socrates revealing that he believes that virtue cannot be taught because it is not knowledge. Therefore, it is a gift from the gods.

Euthyphro’s well-known impasse pertaining to the characteristic of piety is one of the many dialogues written by the Greek philosopher Plato detailing the pursuit for wisdom by his mentor, Socrates. This well-known impasse regarding the nature of piety presents the question of whether or not piety is an act or thing loved by the gods? Regardless if an act is considered right or wrong, the truth or a lie, just or unjust, and holy or unholy, all are the basis of contentious debates difficult within society. Finding common ground within these oppositions can be challenging because of the diversity of cultural, religious, and moral values, and beliefs in society. Such is the situation with Socrates and Euthyphro.

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

The first two theses of the Euthyphro dilemma are, “Things are good because God loves them” and “God loves things because they are good.” I think these are two completely different things. Someone, who is religious, might think that things are good because God loves them and because God loves something or someone, it is good. Basically, things are the way they are because God loves them. The other theses makes more sense to me. It makes sense that God loves a thing or someone because it is good or they are good/do good things. It means that the thing or person is already good and because so, they are being loved by God. I myself am not a religious person, but the second thesis of the two makes more sense. It reminds me of karma in a way.

The conversation about what the gods love, leads to the question of the good in association with the good. Socrates proposes the question whether “the pious is loved by the gods because it’s pious? Or is it pious because it’s loved?” Euthyphro is confused about what is meant by this question, so Socrates continues to explain and establishes the distinction that the pious is loved, because it’s pious and what is god-loved is that way, because it is loved by the gods. Socrates then brings up the question of whether, or not, the pious as a whole must be just. Euthyphro believes that the just part of piety “tends” to the gods, Socrates argues back that, unlike horse training, piety doesn’t make the gods better. Tending rather refers to providing a service and piety is considered knowing how to provide service to the gods, which leads them back to the pious just pleasing the gods and being what is loved by them.

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

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.

. Why do good? To answer this question one might say, because god commanded it. This philosophy is known as the DCT. This is a highly controversial theory, which, Socrates poses two questions to confirm its falsehood. This then becomes known as the Euthyphro Dilemma. The two questions Socrates raises are; 1. Are morally good acts commanded by god because they are morally good? Or 2. Are they morally good because god commands them? Both of these questions can contradict the DCT theory. The first question raises an independence problem or the problem of divine relevance because it seems the act must be good prior to god willing them otherwise god would not will them. If morally good acts are good prior to gods willing them then there really

In this paper, I will discuss about the Divine Command Theory and Euthyphro Problem and show how the Euthyphro Problem makes the Divine Command Theory morality arbitrary. Also, I will discuss why one does not have to reject the belief in God due to the Divine Command Theory cannot give a satisfactory answer to the Euthyphro Problem. First, I will define what the Divine Command Theory is and discuss its attractive features that answer the problem about the objectivity of ethnics. Second, I will define the Euthyphro Problem. Also, I will discuss how the Euthyphro Problem makes the Divine Command Theory morality arbitrary and show how it makes the doctrine of God’s goodness meaningless. Finally, I will discuss why one does not have to reject the belief in God just because one rejects the Divine Command Theory.

Euthyphro is a dialogue drafted by Plato between Socrates and Euthyphro with a cultivation of the meaning of piety. Virtually, piety is used to refer to a manner of living meant to fulfill one’s moral duty both to God and humanity. The term Euthyphro takes a special interest in this discussion from the point that Socrates got charged by the Athenian court to prove his innocence or guiltiness of his impiety, or sin. As the definition goes, Socrates’ feeling is that the Athenians do not understand the nature of both piety and impiety. The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro is implicated with ethical theories, or theories of value in general identifying righteous and wrongness, or goodness and badness as might be commanded or forbidden by god or gods. From this point of view and framed on Euthyphro’s definition of piety, the essay considers arguing philosophically on whether Euthyphro is or is not a theological voluntarist.