In “Euthyphro” by Plato, the argument is based on what the definition of being holy is. Socrates is being charged with committing unholy actions. In order to win his case, he has to figure out exactly what makes something holy or unholy. He enlists Euthyphro to explain this to him. Euthyphro is supposed to be full of knowledge regarding this issue, but in reality he has no clue what he is talking about. Euthyphro changes his point of view during his explanations many times. Each time became slightly more confusing than the last. At first Euthyphro stated, “Piety is doing as I am doing; that is to say, prosecuting any one who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of any similar crime-whether he be your father or mother, or whoever he may be-that makes no difference; and not to prosecute them is impiety. “ Socrates explains to Euthyphro that this is an act of piety, not the definition. So Euthyphro counters his comment saying that holiness is what is agreeable by the gods. Once again, Socrates proves his argument to be of no substance. Euthyphro continues to undertake his mission to prove to Socrates that he has an understanding of piety. After many …show more content…
We give through sacrifice and they give back by giving us whatever we desire. This entire argument makes no sense at all. It has no relation with the definition of holiness. It has more to do with acts of holiness. Euthyphro made the same mistake earlier in his statement concerning seeking justice for wrongdoings. Socrates points this out in the following statement: “Remember that I did not ask you to give me two or three examples of piety, but to explain the general idea which makes all pious things to be pious. Do you not recollect that there was one idea which made the impious impious, and the pious pious?” He provided Socrates with an act of being holy, not a definition, which in no way helped his
Socrates had asked the statement regarding piety because he felt that the Athenians did not understand the true meaning of piety (right) and impiety (wrong) and wanted to understand the reason behind the accusations against him through Euthyphro’s reason behind his charges against his father. Socrates asks Euthyphro the meaning of piety because he does not understand what it is and as it seems so does Euthyphro who continues to give examples rather than the actual answer to the question. Socrates asks Euthyphro if pious people are just and
This is a summary of a conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates that happened near Lyceum. The conversation starts with what takes each person to the court today; Meletus was prosecuting Socrates for corrupting the youth and refusing the acknowledgment of the gods of the state and Euthyphro was there to prosecute his father for killing one of the servants of their house. In ancient greek taking your own family specially your own father to the court was a preposterous action, Socrates startled by this fact told Euthyphro that he must have a clear knowledge and understanding of what is pious and what is not or what is piety as a whole picture that he sees himself well qualified and befitting for such action. So Socrates ironically asks Euthyphro to explain this to him so he could use it as his defense in the court.
In the Euthyphro, Plato has Socrates, his student, explain the argument that “Holiness” cannot be defined as “whatever (all) the gods love”. Euthyphro is a priest in the story where he is supposed to know a great deal about his preaching. Then through some conversation, Euthyphro expresses that it is holy it is loved by the multiple gods. He claims that “Holy” is loved by the gods because it is “Holy,” and it’s the case that being holy is because the gods love it.
What makes the god-beloved the god-beloved is the fact that the gods love it, whereas what makes the pious the pious is something else entirely. The gods can love many things for many reasons and therefore, whatever is pious may be loved by the gods, but what is loved by the gods is up to discretion. For instance, he points out that the gods argue over not questions that can be reached through calculation but over questions such as what is just and what is good. Socrates asks Euthyphro if people who are pious are also just in which he responds yes, but there is a part of justice that cares to the gods and part that cares to the men. The problem with this statement lies in the notion of ‘care’. With some things such as horses and men, care implies some way of making them better but when applied to gods, care cannot have this meaning as men cannot make the gods better. He states that prayer and sacrifices are not beneficial to god as god doesn’t need our acknowledgement but the practices are only beneficial to the believer. If we can do nothing to benefit god, then the first part of justice is irrelevant and we must focus on other men or moral conduct according to Socrates. Euthyphro then defines pious as not what is beneficial to the gods but as what is pleasing to them. We come to conclude that neither Socrates nor Euthyphro knows what the true nature of piety is as they cannot explain the origin or why piety is the way it is. We are left with the initial question of what is
In the Euthyphro, Socrates is making his way into the courthouse; however, prior to entering he had a discussion with a young priest of Athens, Euthyphro. This dialogue relates religion and justice to one another and the manner in which they correlate. Euthyphro feels as though justice necessitates religion and Socrates feels the opposite, religion necessitates justice. Euthyphro claims that religion is everything, justice, habits, traditions, customs, cultures, etc. all are derived from religion. Socrates went on to question what exactly would be the definition of pious. Euthyphro offered Socrates three definitions of pious and in all three Socrates was able to successfully find fault...
Throughout the second half of the Euthyphro section of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Socrates is trying to search for a true meaning of the word pious. He converses with Euthyphro to try and detect a definition, in which they both discuss their own court cases. This is when Euthyphro brings up the discussion between piety and impiety, and in doing so creates curiosity within Socrates. Socrates asks Euthyphro to please provide a definition of what is pious or not. Euthyphro first mentions that the definition of piety is what he is doing at that moment, which is prosecuting his father for murder. Socrates disregards this so called definition because he claims it is only an example, not a true definition. After giving possible definitions both in the
“I am sure, therefore, that you know the nature of piety and impiety. Speak out then, my dear Euthyphro, and do not hide your knowledge.” (Plato, Euthyphro). Socrates is constantly mocking Euthyphro by repeatedly asking 'What is piety? And How does it differ from Justice'. From time and time again Euthyphro unknowingly repeats his answer in various forms. Socrates takes note of Euthyphro's ignorance and challenges Euthyphro's understanding of the terms justice, the principle, and piety, the action. Further into the dialogue, one can infer the assumed definitions of these terms.
Socrates wonders what Euthyphro means by "looking after the gods." Surely, the gods are omnipotent, and don't need us to look after them or help them in any way. Euthyphro's final suggestion is that holiness is a kind of trading with the gods, where we give them sacrifices and they grant our prayers. Our sacrifices do not help them in any way, but simply gratify them. But, Socrates points out, to say that holiness is gratifying the gods is similar to saying that holiness is what is approved of by the gods, which lands us back in our previous conundrum. Rather than try to find a better definition, Euthyphro leaves in a huff, frustrated by Socrates' questioning
Socrates asks Euthyphro to give another definition of holiness, because the previous definition, that what is holy is what is approved of by the gods, has been disproven. Socrates suggests that maybe everything that is holy is just. Socrates quotes a line of poetry, to demonstrate his point: "where fear is, there is too is reverence." Socrates disagrees with that idea, saying that there are many things that people fear, such as sickness and poverty, which we do not revere. However, he points out, where there is reverence, there is also fear: a feeling of reverence and shame for an act can be seen as fearing a bad reputation. His ideas about justice and holiness are comparable; he suggests that holiness is a part of justice, but that there may
Piety comes to be understood as a kind of continuum, and Socrates uniquely represents the “sober mean” on this pious continuum (Strauss 52). In other words, Xenophon’s treatment of Socratic piety in the Memorabilia depends specifically upon highlighting the distinctiveness of Socratic pious praxis from extreme positions. Thus, although Xenophon exonerates Socrates he does so only to an extent that brings into focus the uniqueness of Socratic pious praxis. Moreover, Socrates’ sober view –as outlined by the Memorabilia - limits the power of the divine in two main ways. Firstly, it governs resort to piety through resort to reason; one who is truly pious limits his resort to the divine only to asking questions about unknown outcomes. Accordingly, one who is truly pious, will more readily rely on reason to resolve issues that deviate from this former qualification. This claim is in itself problematic because its implementation depends upon the belief in a formulation of the divine that is uniquely rational; it requires the worship of a divine that in itself acknowledges the full potential of human reason, and thereby understands the limited resort to divinity that would inevitably emerge as an outcome of this rationalistic pious praxis. Furthermore, it requires a very fragile distinction; one can ask
The man eventually starved to death in the ditch and this troubled Euthyphro, he believed the murder was impious no matter the circumstances and believed it was his duty to prosecute his father for the killing. When discussing the incident, Plato questions if Euthyphro knowledge of religion on determining if things are pious or impious, who responds with; “Prosecuting a wrongdoer is pious, whether it is your friend, or your parents, or a stranger” (pp. 308). This spouts Socrates suggestion of a philosophical flaw to this divine command theory, which is now known as the Euthyphro question, while Euthyphro was an extremist and very pious, it left little room for convincing a touchy topic. Socrates tried to get across the question of an action is wrong or impious because God forbids it or does God forbid it because it is wrong or
Keeping true to Socratic/Platonic methodology, questions are raised in the Euthyphro by conversation; specifically “What is holiness?” After some useless deliberation, the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro ends inconclusively. Euthyphro varying definitions of piety include “What I do is pious to the gods,” and, “What is pleasing to the gods is pious.” Socrates proves these definitions to be insufficient, which leads us to the Apology.
The first objection that Socrates stated was that Euthyphro’s first definition of piety was not a definition because it did not express a general idea of the word piety. Soon after the first try at defining the word piety, Euthyphro said that “what is dear to all the gods.” In disagreement, Socrates let out his second objection, which was that some gods could disagree. Then, Euthyphro said that piety was “what is dear to all the gods.” As his final objection, Socrates states “should something be pious just because it is dear to the gods or is it dear to the gods because it is pious?” In short, is an action considered morally right by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because God orders it? Even though this important point impacts the Divine Command Theory mainly, it also works against the theory of Cultural Relativism. The theory’s problems start arising when you start to think “why do our actions become moral if society or our culture approves of them?” There is also nothing in the theory of Cultural Relativism that explains why normal behavior in a society is considered the moral behavior instead of the other way around. Thus, morality is decided on a random basis there is nothing that says what makes normal behavior moral. The Divine Command Theory and Cultural Relativism both share this weakness that discredits
Euthyphro was arguing that by doing what the gods believe is holy and pious you are making them better, in other words you are taking care of them and it is like a kind of service that you are doing towards the gods. Euthyphro said, “The kind of care, Socrates, that slaves take of their masters” which meant that you are taking care of them in the sense that you are making them better and not actually caring for them (17, 13d). In other words, you are helping improve them and this is a service that the gods appreciate and want you to do. He believed that this service is improving the gods and that they like this service. The gods believe that being holy is a service towards them, therefore there should be a reason on why the gods use us and want to reward our holiness. He believes that the gods choose what is holy for a reason and should be approved by
The interesting dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro demonstrates this Socratic method of questioning in order to gain a succinct definition of a particular idea, such as piety. Though the two men do not come to a conclusion about the topic in the conversation seen in Euthyphro, they do discover that piety is a form of justice, which is more of a definition than their previous one. Their conversation also helps the reader to decipher what makes a good definition. Whenever Euthyphro attempts to define piety, Socrates seems to have some argument against the idea. Each definition offered, therefore, becomes more succinct and comes closer to the actual concept of piety, rather than just giving an example or characteristic of it. To be able to distinguish between a good definition and a bad one is the first step to defining what Socrates so desperately wished to define: w...