The Euthyphro Dilemma

Socrates takes Euthyphro’s answer as to what is generally holy and unholy and tests the theory to a world of quarrelling gods to expose the inadequacy of morality based on religion. Socrates simply summarizes Euthyphro’s response as “A thing or person loved-by-the-gods is holy, whereas something or someone hated-by-the-gods is unholy.” But Socrates is curious about circumstances where the gods might disagree and by what means can a thing or person be both loved and hated by the gods leading to the establishment of a thing as both holy and unholy. This would by definition render the entire generalized argument of Euthyphro wrong. Socrates walks Euthyphro through the various reason why the gods have a good reason to disagree given their own nature and the nature of beings in general. This is an important point for the times that Plato is living given a predominant focus on a polytheistic world, but I would argue it still has implications for monotheistic believers in the modern world. Modern day Christians have to contend with two other very

In Plato’s Euthyphro, we read about how Socrates is asking Euthyphro of piety and about the situation he is in. Euthyphro must judge a murder, and to the surprise of the audience, the murder was his father. As the scene goes on, Socrates keeps asking what Euthyphro means by piety. In the end, Euthyphro finally answers that piety is what the God’s love or demand. In The Ethical Life, they modify the question asked by Socrates to “Is an action morally right because God commands it, or does God command an action because it is right?”. This question brings up many other questions.

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

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.

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]?'

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).

Socrates is known to be a very wise man and speaks from the heart. Whenever he talks to a person he questions their answers. By asking several questions to test their knowledge and to see if they know what they’re talking about. He feels that people should think outside the box and theirs more than what the Gods think. People should be able to give out their opinion even if they are right or wrong. But living in Athens everyone believes in the Gods. If you do wrong the Gods will be angry and they will turn their back on you. 
 In the chapter Euthyphro, he was surprise whenever he seen Socrates in the courthouse. Meletus did a lawsuit against Socrate because his been corrupting the youth by teaching them not to believe in gods. They

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

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.

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,

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.

However, Plato’s dilemma is more applicable for the Christian, since we believe that God must be the ultimate source of the good, so a standard that is higher than God is problematic; and we are forced to deal with the apparent arbitrariness of a God who makes things good by commanding them. What if God commanded that we torture babies? That would imply that torturing babies was good, which is strongly counter-intuitive.3 A possible answer to this objection is that what is good is grounded in God’s character, and his commands flow from his character. While this is true, it does not really solve the dilemma – it only pushes the criticism back another step. What if God liked torturing babies? That would still imply that torturing babies was good, and it would still be strongly counter-intuitive.