The Paradox Of Socrates's Euthyphro Paradox

The Euthyphro is an example of early dialogue of Plato's: it is brief, deals with a question in ethics, this is a dialogue which took place between Socrates and Euthyphro who claims to be an expert in a certain field of ethics, which ended prematurely. It is also puzzled with Socratic irony, the irony is present because Socrates is reckoning Euthyphro as the teacher when in fact Socrates is teaching Euthyphro. Socrates poses as the ignorant student wishing to learn from a supposed expert, when in fact he shows Euthyphro to be the ignorant one who knows nothing about the subject on which they are discussing, which is piety and impiety. This setup is necessary in order to encourage Euthyphro to bring forth and evaluate the arguments being formed by him, and thus to lead him to see their faults for himself.

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.

If it were the exact definition, only Euthyphro would be pious. He said that Euthyphro did not understand the difference between a definition and an example. Next, Euthyphro says that piety is found in things that are dear to the gods (7a). Socrates again rejected Euthyphro’s definition of piety. The Greek gods were anthropomorphic; therefore, another may despise what would be dear to one god. This definition offered was not distinct. Finally, Euthyphro said that what is pious is what loved by the gods (9e). However, Euthyphro can’t answer whether something is pious because it is loved or it is loved because it is pious. He can’t conceive the difference between cause and effect. It is in the Euthyphro that Socrates begins his defense of his actions and principles to the reader. A priest can’t give him a concise answer as to what is religious; therefore, how can anyone else, especially one less religiously guided than a priest, accuse him of blasphemous actions?

Socrates helps Euthyphro to give meaning to the word ‘piety ', and this serves to bring a new meaning to the respect to the divine beings and help in the explanation of the whole context of the divinity in the society. In this manner, there is the need to create a clear definition and help Euthyphro in getting ideas that he can use to teach Socrates to answer the resulting question about the piety. This is to enable Socrates to have a string defense against the charge of impiety and help in tackling the challenges that he faces in the society. The story and the relationship between Socrates and Euthyphro arise when Socrates is called to court to answer to the charges of impiety by Meletus, (Plato et al, 1927). In the courts, Socrates meets Euthyphro, who comes to the courts to prosecute his father who is a murderer.

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]?'

Because Zeus and Kronos both dealt with their fathers in this way, Euthyphro justifies his prosecution of his own father as “just” (Plato Five Dialogues, Grube & Cooper 2002,). As for Socrates, he questions Euthyphro about his reasoning and the reason why piety is defined by the approval of gods so that it could possibly help him with his impiety issue also. Euthyphro does not help with Socrates’s case at all due to the fact that Euthyphro does not have correct reasoning behind any of his arguments. He continuously tries to explain an example, but since he lacks proper critical thinking, he is not able to fully think about his argument. Euthyphro lacks any type of proper reasoning as to why he believes piety is based on the approval of gods and instead concentrates more on their thoughts rather than his own.

Before addressing the fundamental issues of the Theory of Recollection, it is worth noting that Socrates never addresses the second half of Meno’s Paradox- assuming one has found what it is they are looking for, how is one to know they have found it if they do not know what they are looking for? There seems to lack a method for verifying one’s answer and if you cannot confirm that what you have found is in fact what you were looking for then inquiry seems to be never-ending. Although this is a discussion for another time, it does highlight an issue, which Socrates faces in the first part of the paradox, the part he addresses, which is the problem of circularity. Ironically, Socrates’ Theory of Recollection, which is used to overcome

In the following paper I am going to defend my personal position on whether or not justice is objective. I am going to explain the argument between Socrates and Thrasymachus and define the terms used. Next I will give supporting evidence to support my position. I agree with Socrates, which is that justice is an objective truth.

The discussion in the piece Euthyphro is about pious and impious. Euthyphro a man who says to have the knowledge of the divine is unsure what to do about prosecuting against his own father. Turning to Socrates for help, the discussion about pious and impious begins. Socrates does not necessarily have a side in the situations, but he is impressed by Euthyphro’s knowledge. Socrates tends to guide Euthyphro throughout this debacle by helping him to see what he truly believes.

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

pious, but every answer he offers is subjected to the full force of Socrates' critical thinking. Socrates systematically refutes Euthyphro's

In Euthyphro, Socrates is on his way to his trial for impiety when he runs into Euthyphro. Euthyphro is on his way to trial as well, but he is the prosecutor in his trial. He is trying his own father for the murder of a servant. Socrates asks him to teach him about what is holy so that he might be able to defend himself better. Socrates asks Euthyphro to teach him, but as you read you

Socrates begins his dialogue with Euthyphro, by asking Euthyphro does he have a clear understanding of what is holy and unholy. He asks this because he is faced with the crime of heresy. Socrates hopes to learn from Euthyphro so he has a better

“Euthyphro” discusses an ethical dilemma in which the eponymous Euthyphro and Socrates talk about why Euthyphro is prosecuting his own father in killing a murderer, which was not pious. As Euthyphro had made his own family and friends angry in going against his own father, he feels as it is the right thing in the eyes of the gods and justice. However, Socrates is still unconvinced that what the priest does is in fact pious when the scale of justice tilts accordingly as some gods will remain unsatisfied with said decision. What I think is that Euthyphro is doing the right thing in supporting justice with the right intentions, but he is losing valuable relationships in the process. Meanwhile, Socrates ponders what the definition of pious means