Euthyphro suggest that what is pious is agreeable to the gods, and that impious is what gods disagree with. In response Socrates points out to examine whether the statement is pleasant to let it pass. Euthyphro agrees that it should be examines although he believes that is a fine statement. Socrates then sets up an elaborate argument to show that the two cannot be equivalent. Socrates starts of by making Euthyphro to consider that pious is agreeable by the gods because is holy so what is pious determines what is accepted by the gods. Euthyphro seem to be confused from what Socrates tried to tell him. Socrates gives the general principles in which he says some cases already examined like carrying , leading and seeing. For a better understanding
Socrates’ position towards the authorities was inconsistent in The Euthyphro and The Crito. He questioned the authority in The Euthyphro but defended and obeyed it in The Crito. In The Euthyphro, Socrates had a dialog with Euthyphro who claimed to be an expert on the subjects such as holiness, Gods, piety, justice, etc. Socrates began his philosophical debate by asking Euthyphro to define piety and impiety.
Socrates and Euthyphro’s conversation is centered on what is pious and impious and this is what their entire conversation consists of. Socrates is using his great wisdom to teach Euthyphro about piety and impiety. Socrates said, “The Athenians, it seems to me, may think a man to be clever without paying him much attention, so long as they do not think that he teaches his wisdom to others. But as soon as they think that he makes other people
In Euthyphro, Plato’s method of arguing obliviously proves the point that evidence and a clear thought out explanation is needed when trying to describe and explain the difference between two things—especially when involving right and wrong. Although it helps to prove it and make you truly think about the definitions as well as how to describe it, for the person, in this case Euthyphro, on the other side of the argument it can be very annoying; because you explain one thing and then are questioned and have to explain more or then you being to questioned on your own thinking making you have to restart. It is in a way similar to now how little kids go through a phase were they ask “why” to anything and everything; typically the one being questioned
Socrates initially found this statement to be a potentially adequate definition, so he proceeded to question Euthyphro further on the definition. Socrates first touched on the idea that the gods are in a state of discord in the Greek pantheon. Socrates posits that this is because they consider different things just or unjust, beautiful or ugly, and good or bad. By this logic, the same things are loved and hated by the gods, so that means it’s likely that everything is loved by one god or another on Mt. Olympus. Therefore, according to the definition put forth by Euthyphro, everything would be considered pious and impious at the same time.
Piety is a difficult word to understand and define. In Plato’s Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, he brings up a dialogue that rings true even today. The question of what piety is, and how can one fully understand so they can thereby live piously. Socrates rejected Euthyphro’s definition of piety as “what is dear to the gods” because this definition was vague, and did not truly explain what piety was and because as the gods are beyond understanding and are ununified, there is no exact set of what they hold dear. Socrates has many problems with Euthyphro’s definitions, because he is looking for Euthyphro to give him an accurate definition, while Euthyphro fails to give a proper definition.
Midterm Short Essay (Question 2) Socrates objects to Euthyphro’s definition of piety because according to the two premises agreed by Euthyphro, pious is not equal to the god-loved. In the dialogue when Socrates wants to explain the reason the Euthyphro, Socrates says, “So it is in the same case as the things just mentioned; it is not being loved by those who love it because it is something loved, but it is something loved because it is being loved by them?” (10d).
He does as such for a few reasons. In any case, he doesn't trust that one's obligation toward a perfect being ought to be viewed as something that is partitioned and particular from his obligation toward his kindred men. In actuality, he holds that the main genuine method for rendering administration to God comprises in doing what one can to advance the good and otherworldly improvement of people. Second, Socrates respects the reason and capacity of religion as something that is unique in relation to the view communicated by Euthyphro. Rather than religion being utilized as a sort of hardware or gadget for getting what one needs, as was valid for Euthyphro's situation, Socrates trusts the basic role of genuine religion is to carry one's own life into amicability with the will of God.
Euthyphro wants to take his father to the authorities to charge him with murder. Socrates is fascinated that Euthyphro would accuse his own father of murder and then want to
Socrates swells Euthyphro’s ego with a sarcastic comment. Euthyphro implies that he is an expert in the field of holiness. Socrates obviously amused by Euthyphro self-proclaimed expertise that he pretends to be unfamiliarity with the topic at hand and asks Euthyphro to teach him what is pious.
In Euthyphro, Socrates is having a discussion with Euthyphro about piety and impiety. Eventually, Socrates asks Euthyphro for the definition of piety. Euthyphro responds with his definition of piety and impiety: “Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them.” Socrates does not approve
He believes he should be punished because that was not the holy thing for him to do. But what is holy? When the question arises on what the meaning of holy even is, Euthyphro could not give Socrates a real answer. They kept battling back and forth on if something is loved by the Gods, it is holy or is it holy because it is loved by the Gods.
Euthyphro tries to explain him that he was doing the same as Zeus did to his father and therefore being pious. But Socrates argues that it is just an example and not an explanation. He tries again and says what gods like is pious and what they dislike is not. But Socrates points out the fallacy in that argument that one god might not agree with another to which he replies in his third attempt what all gods like is pious and what they all hate is impious. Here, in this example we can see that how he searches for a concrete and complete definition for being pious.
In Euthyphros actions to prosecute his father he relies on this statement. Even though, he considers himself as pious man, Euthyphro is pious in prosecuting his father. Look at Euthyphros notion “to prosecute a wrongdoer is pious and not to prosecute is impious”. Let imagine this case as his father is guilty and he would hide it from authorities, from
His goal was to make the court understand his beliefs prove which type of knowledge is worth knowing. When talking about the wise man he examined, Socrates said, “Neither of us actually knows what Beauty and Goodness are, but he thinks he knows, even though he doesn’t; whereas I neither know nor think I know.” This shows that Socrates proved he was more wise than the titled wise man because instead of faking the knowledge, that wasn’t too important, he accepted that he did not know which would result in him then seeking for
Euthyphro’s Dilemma is when Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Does God love goodness because it is good, or is it good because God loves it?” Euthyphro’s Dilemma is that God determines what is good and evil, right and wrong. This dilemma challenges the Divine Command theory because according to Euthyphro’s Dilemma we would be obligated to do something wrong because God commanded it. This conflicts with the Divine Command theory because it would imply that cruelty could be morally right if God told us to do so. The idea that cruelty can be morally right goes up against the belief in the Divine Command Theory because it proposes that an action's status that is morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God