Essay On Euthyphro And Socrates

In the book the Republic, by Plato, revised by G.M.A. Grube, an argument is made over what Justice is. How is justice defined? Can it be defined? What incentivizes one to be a just person? The group, specifically Socrates and Thrasymachus have concluded that Justice must be defined and proven worthwhile. The argument lies within this task as Thrasymachus hastily makes the bold claim that what society knows as “just” is simply not desirable. He states that Justice is actually the advantage of the stronger and claims that injustice is a virtue. Socrates and Euthyphro have a similar argument where “Holy” acts are attempted to be defined and the controversy alludes to that of being “Just”. Euthyphro claims that it is a holy act to prosecute those

My understanding of justice is using right vs wrong to determine a course of action along with taking into account any consequences that might follow a decision. In dialogue between two philosophers, it is argued what makes an act holy and what makes an act unholy. Euthyphro has decided to prosecute his own father for murder in a time when religion forbade persecution of one’s own father. Euthyphro justifies his actions based on the claim that “It is ridiculous, Socrates, that you think it matters whether the man who was killed was a stranger or a relative, and do not see that the only thing to consider is whether the action of the slayer was justified or not, and that if it was justified one ought to let him alone, and if not, one ought to proceed against him, even if he share one's hearth [4c] and eat at one's table” (4c). Euthyphro is explaining to Socrates why it is holy to persecute injustices and unholy to ignore an injustice. Socrates has more to say, but he first helps Euthyphro build his argument. In doing so, Socrates attempts to show him though his own reasoning why he should humbly acknowledge his own ignorance in his