Euthyphro Vs Plato

Forum 2: Plato - Holiness and Deities' Approval

My initial view on Plato’s argument that what is holy and what is approved by the gods are not the same, is that this argument is convincing. I will also, show that Euthyphro would not have given any reasonable response to the argument in response to the second question and final part of the assignment, which requires if we can think of any arguments Euthyphro could have made and what his response would have been. However, before I delve fully into evaluating and buttressing my position, it is apropos to take a synoptic and retrospective incursion to the genesis of Plato’s conclusion to fully equip us with the historic origin and import of his deductions. In the course
of the above too, I will draw a distinction between what is “holy” and what is” approved by the gods” to ventilate my initial view.
Briefly, Plato’s conclusion or argument was a follow–up to the inconclusive colloquy his mentor Socrates, who was on his way to the king’s court for prosecution having charged of impiety by Meletus, had with one of the highly respected Athenian, Euthyphro, who was also a judge against his father arraigned for murder.
Socrates’s initial intension was to tap from the repertoire of the assumed and over – estimated knowledge of Euthyphro, as part of his defense. The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro was based on the role of the deities and justice in the man’s actions as Euthyphro presented himself as man of great religious knowledge. Euthyphro, also referred to as learned, soothsayer and diviner, postulated his belief that the relationship between man and the deities was more of a commercial beneficial relationship.
Euthyphro's initial definition of holiness when prompted by Socrates was that what is holy is what is approved of by all the gods. Socrates countered with his argument that the two cannot be analogous. He propagated that what is holy gets approved of by the gods because it is holy. To Socrates, what is holy determines what gets approved of by the gods, and what gets approved of by the gods is an off-shot of what is approved of by the gods. Therefore, the consequences of the foregoing is that what is holy cannot be the same thing as what is approved of by the gods, since one of these two governs what gets approved of by the gods. The definition and criteria for
“what is holy” and “what is approved” are at the discretion of the gods.
At this juncture, it is imperative to draw the distinction between the definition of holiness as what is agreeable to the gods and the definition as what is approved of by all the gods.
My understanding is that the first refers to "the gods." And the other refers to "all the gods.
Euthyphro initially understanding was that holiness was a matter of being what the gods like, but Socrates in his usual exploratory manner, countered that often the gods are in disagreement. Based on Socrates argument, Euthyphro was forced to reposition his argument that only those things that all the gods collectively agree and approve of can count as holy. My assertion is that in holiness, there is an intrinsic quality and this quality is in the gods’ and because this quality is a requisite for holiness, approval may or may not be needed, but is required for holiness. Following Plato’s argument, therefore, what is holy is something different from what is approved of by the gods. Something holy gets approved because it is holy, and something that is being approved by the gods gets approved irrespective of the circumstance.
Plato/Socrates wants to suggest, in his argument what is holy and what is approved of by the gods do not mean the same thing and cannot be equivalent as claimed by
Euthyphro.
This argument is a commanding move against the proposition of morality as being resolute exclusively by some deposition of divine authority.
Plato’s argument suggest that there is no such thing as a definition of holiness, and that there is no one feature that all holy deeds have in common.
Plato and Socrates challenge of Euthyphro's knowledge or assumed knowledge serves as a reminder as critical thinkers that we must constantly challenge or confront our beliefs from time to time to be sure that what we hold as our conclusions are enough as required by critical thinking.
On my thoughts of any arguments Euthyphro could have given in reply and what they would have been, I sincerely do not think Euthyphro would have given any reasonable response to Socrates inquest. He was already flummoxed and exhausted of Socrates depth of logical reasoning and was seen by Socrates as indolent in his reasoning. His belief in the goods as trading partners overshadowed his sense of judgment and his urge to emulate his mythological inclination to the gods ,for example Zeus in prosecuting has father was all he was interested in as he saw this as divine and pleasing to the gods.