Euthyphro

analytic thinking of Euthyphro Nikon121 PHI 200 Bob Harris October 15, 2012 Analysis of Euthyphro Socrates was put to death in capital of Greece for subverting the youth of the city. He was indicted by Meletus and awaiting his educate on the porch of the King of Archon when he met Euthyphro. It was at this point he engaged in a dig around pietism. In this paper, I will examine that debate and present my own conclusion about its purpose as well as my own description of faith. Holiness, or prayerfulness, is the center on of the conversation between Socrates and Euthyphro.Both of the men met on the porch of the King to deal with a ratified matter Socrates the keep upant and Euthyphro the plaintiff. Socrates was being supercharged with impiety, and Euthyphro was bringing charges against his father for murdering a servant. When Socrates hear of the nature of Euthyphros case, he reason out that Euthyphro must grant understood the nature of impiety and piety. Since Socrates w as being persecuted for a lose of piety, he began a conversation to find the nature of piety and impiety. In the dialogue, sixsome different definitions of piety were dispresent(p) and refuted by Socrates by dint of Socratic questioning.Socratic questioning has triple main goals to ch all in allenge assumptions and self-proclaimed experts, discover a deeper examineing, and apply rational models critically. Each of the six definitions failed to stand up to the Socratic questioning, and in the end we be left in time such(prenominal) confused about what piety solidly is. The first definition of piety aband atomic number 53d by Euthyphro was that it was doing what he was doing, and whatever other similar deeds (Plato & Jowett). This was easily refuted by Socrates as he had asked for a catch standard from which to judge all acts, and Euthyphro had yieldn examples just now.Piety is that which is unspoilt to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them is the next definition stipulation by Euthyphro (Plato & Jowett). Piety and impiety argon liberate opposites, so one act cannot be both. However, by this definition, since there were many gods, it is likely for an act to be both pietistic and im prayerful. The gods often disagreed in many elder stories, so if one god held an act to be dear it was possible another(prenominal) would hate it. This would make an act pious and impious, which is a contradiction.After his above point was refuted, Euthyphro circumscribed his point to read that religion is what all the gods manage and the opposite was hated by all of them (Plato & Jowett). This definition is a sting harder to refute, facilitate it definitely travel swindle of giving a clear standard from which to judge all acts. This definition fails to describe the nature of piety. It says the gods cheat piety only when it does not clearly excuse wherefore. in that respect has to be a reason that the gods love piety, and withou t that reason piety seems to beseem relativist invention. I think this definition just gives a characteristic of piety.The next definition given is that worship is part of justice that is heavy on by the gods (Plato & Jowett). Socrates uses examples of volume aid to lesser beings for the sake of improving them, and shows that this is inconceivable with gods since they are beings above us. The word care defeats this definition. This leads to another unclear definition that invokes that people somehow improve the gods, which we know from the concept of a god is impossible holiness is that part of justice devoted to helper or ministration to the gods it is learning how to enthral them with words or deeds (Plato & Jowett).The stopping point definition given by Euthyphro, in the lead he runs off leaving more questions than answers, is piety is the art or science that gods and men use to do concern with each other (Plato & Jowett). This definition falls short in that it does n ot clearly show the benefit gained by the gods in this perceived business deal. It only seems to suggest that they find the act pleasing, which seems to lead dressing to the third definition. This definition commits a ballpark fallacy termed Begging the Question. It defines pious as being pious because it is pious, which is not much of an answer.Socrates goal in this conversation is to understand piety, so that he can defend himself in his hearing. However, I believe that this chip has a deeper goal that belonged to Plato. It seemed that he wished to produce piety for the sham that it is to shame those that penalize Socrates. I believe this because before Socrates was penalise he asked that a goat be sacrificed to the god of medicine. I believe this showed that he believed in an afterlife, which indicates belief in the gods. I believe that this dialogue did not genuinely happen and was simply written by Plato after the death of his teacher.I think this is shown through the na ture of the character of Euthyphro. He was a self-proclaimed expert on piety, as most(prenominal) piety experts are, and he failed to have an well-grounded response to any question posed by Socrates. After failing miserably to give a satis detailory answer, he ran off. I believe this demonstrates that Plato was using this plot of ground to put piety itself on trial. I am not a very(prenominal) stout believer in holiness so I can only think of a way to neuter one of Euthyphros existing definitions to explain it.I believe a clear bill of piety would have been to say that the gods love makes acts pious. This gives an explanation of why certain acts are pious, but it still does not give the nature of piousness. Socrates whitethorn have questioned why the gods love the acts, as the reason the gods loved them would be a clearer answer than the fact that the gods love made the acts pious. If that answer is missing this definition excessively seems the follow the go away definition of Euthyphro. It would seem to say that pious acts are pious because the gods love them, which is waste and arbitrary.I believe no one thinks that clean-living claims are baseless so this definition would also fall short of Socrates expectations. thither is no definition about why acts are pious, because pious acts are obdurate by men and attributed to God. Men have created God and said that he has given out certain principles, but the real reason that these acts were determined remediate or harm are lost in the annuals of time. At some point, some fellowship labeled certain acts right and maltreat perhaps nature built it into us, but nature is accepting of cleansing ones own large-hearted so this also falls short as an explanation.The reality is that the concepts of what are right and wrong were decided by early serviceman and adoptive by society as a whole. The concept of religion furthered those beliefs of right and wrong until they became widespread. These beliefs tod ay have become such an integral part of what we are that we fail to realize that these morals may not be right. If early creation had decided differently, and early religion adopted those views, we would have an entirely different chasten of morally right and wrong concepts.We would also view those concepts as being undeniably right, and view the opposites as impossibly incorrect. However, killing ones own kind is something that happens in nature with very itty-bitty impact, so our moral code is still very open for debate as is piousness and its origins. References Mosser, K. (2010). Philosophy A compact introduction. San Diego, CA Bridgepoint Education, Inc Plato, & Jowett, B. (n. d. ). Euthyphro. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved from http//www. gutenberg. org/ebooks/1642