Here are some questions Socrates asked: Socrates urges Euthyphro to teach him what piety is and the form it is. Euthyphro answered by saying that piety is persecuting religious offenders; this accounts even for relatives he claimed. Again, Socrates questions Euthyphro by stating…
This reading is so confusing, I read it three times and still have some confusion about the Socrates statements. Basically, it is a conversation or arguments between Socrates and Euthyphro. Socrates is in the court because a man whose name is Meletus prosecuted him about corrupting the youth. Therefore, Euthyphro is in the court to prosecute his father for the murder of the servant. It is not proven that his father is killer but Euthyphro is trying to get justice on behalf of the servant. Euthyphro thinks that a person has to pay if he/she does something impiety. Euthyphro explains that piety is something the dear to god and impiety is the thing that you do and god does not like. Euthyphro is trying to explain Socrates that he has knowledge…
I agree with what your saying, I think Socrates understood what everything he was asking Euthyphro about the gods and what they believed in and didn't believe in. When Euthyphro told him that somethings are right by god and wrong by other gods which makes action that people were doing maybe holy/sinful. Socrates wanted to make Euthyphro stop moving fast and slow down and actually think about what he was saying because turning in his father maybe both wrong/right by the gods he was just making his self believe it was the right…
In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates questions Euthyphro, a religious expert, who he runs into outside of a courthouse in Athens. Socrates was being indicted on the charges of corrupting the youth, and Euthyphro was prosecuting his own father for murder. Socrates was bewildered as to why Euthyphro would indict his own blood of a crime. In an attempt to explain to Socrates why it was the right thing to do, Euthyphro proclaims that he is acting piously by taking his father to court. Euthyphro adds that his relatives are mad at him because “it is impious for a son to prosecute his father for murder. But their ideas of the divine attitude to piety and impiety are wrong” (4e). Because of this, Socrates enquires about what Euthyphro believes piety truly is, to which he provides his four definitions that Socrates ultimately disagrees with.…
Socrates and Euthyphro unexpectedly run into each other outside of the Athens courthouse. Euthyphro went to the courthouse to prosecute his father for killing one of his servants, who was a murderer. Socrates was summoned to court to be charged with disturbing the youth. After Euthyphro stated his business at the courthouse, Socrates assumes that he must be a religious expert if he is willing to prosecute his own father on such a serious charge. Euthyphro then agrees with Socrates that he does indeed know all there is to know about what is holy. Socrates asks Euthyphro to teach him what holiness is, in hope that it will help with his trial.…
Plato’s Euthyphro begins with Socrates and Euthyphro meeting at the Hall of Kings regarding charges made against Socrates, that he is an impious man corrupting the youth of Athens. Euthrypro is at the Hall of Kings prosecuting his father, and is quick to brag to Socrates about what a pious man he himself is, for making such scandalous accusations against his own father in the name of piety. Socrates of course takes the opportunity to begin questioning Euthyphro about what it truly means to be pious, under the ruse of wanting knowledge to use in his own trial. Although the dialogue seems to be simply an argument about what piety really is, Socrates is teaching Euthyphro (Plato is teaching the reader), about the nature of definition and the importance of questioning things that may seem incredibly natural.…
This discussion wraps around the reason Socrates is on trial and his standing on piety in which he wishes not to follow. When speaking to Euthyphro, Socrates uses this moment to help himself understand what the meaning of piety is to himself and emits to Euthyphro that he does not know.…
In the reading Euthyphro, Plato’s end goal is to show that there is no rational relationship between “the pious” and “to be loved by the Gods.” The point of Socrates argument is that he is ultimately asking Euthyphro to explain piety by questioning the characteristics of something that is loved. Is something loved because it is good, is it loved because it is popular, what makes something loved?…
Euthyphro is one of Plato’s early dialogues that portrays the discussion of piety between Euthyphro, a man on his way to prosecute his father for murder, and Socrates. When pressed to explain why Euthyphro would prosecute his own father, he states that it is the pious thing to do, from which Socrates takes to mean that Euthyphro knows just what piety is (4D – 5D). Euthyphro’s first definition of piety is that of an example, that is, his own example of prosecuting a wrongdoer, regardless of that person’s relations to you (5E). Socrates finds this definition insufficient to explain what piety is; Euthyphro has only described what he is doing at this moment (6D), which is of course, not a formal definition of piety. Socrates asks not for one or two examples of pious actions but “what this form [piety] itself is” in order to use that as a model to judge other action’s piety (6E). In regards to this first definition of piety that Euthyphro gives, it seems that Socrates has committed the Socratic fallacy. He has assumed that if Euthyphro knows what piety is, he ought to be able to articulate it through a formal definition, additionally, Socrates has assumed that Euthyphro’s example does not demonstrate any knowledge of piety and therefore chooses not to even consider…
Piety, says Euthyphro, is what all the gods love, and the impious is what all the gods hate. Socrates is not satisfied by this definition, either, and so he tries a different tack to extract a definition from Euthyphro. Socrates does this by asking: “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” When Euthyphro seems unsure, Socrates simplifies his question with an analogy. He asks Euthyphro if something is “carried” because it is “a thing carried,” or if it is “carried” because something is carrying it. Both men agree that the action confers the state of being. That is, a thing loved is so because someone loves it, and the thing itself is not creating a state of “loving” within the people around it. Likewise, being loved is not a state inherent to the thing loved, but is the result of the love others bear for the thing. Moving from his analogy back to Euthyphro’s definition, Socrates shows the fallacy in Euthyphro’s statement. Being god-loved cannot confer piety, as it confers “god-loved-ness” instead. Therefore, in Euthyphro’s statement, all the gods loving something would make that thing universally god-loved, but in no way makes it pious. An act is loved by the gods because it is pious, and not the other way…
Throughout the Euthyphro, he gives about 4 different definitions to what he thinks piety is. The first definition Euthyphro gives is that being pious is what he is currently doing, prosecuting the wrongdoer, not to prosecute them would be impious. However, Socrates was unsatisfied with this definition. It was an example rather than a definition. Socrates needed an answer with some form that is consistent with Euthyphro’s definition that all pious actions pious, and impious actions impious.…
In the writing called Euthyphro by Plato, Socrates is being charged with corrupting the youth and not believing in all of the Gods. He is being accused of this by a man named Meletus who feels as though he is guilty of not believing in the Gods of the states. Not only does he not believe in the Gods but he is accused of making up new ones. The crimes that he is being charged with go hand in hand with each other but he maintains his innocence because he feels he isn’t guilty. While on the other hand Euthyphro is prosecuting his father and indicting him for murder. Morally Euthyphro feels as though it’s the right thing to do and his family doesn’t agree only because it’s his father. In this essay I will summarize the dialogue and its message relating to piety/holiness.…
Plato's dialog called Euthyphro is about a discussion that took place between Socrates and Euthyphro concerning the meaning of piety, or one's duty to both gods and to humanity. Socrates has recently been charged with impiety and is about to be tried before the Athenian court while Euthyphro is on trial for murder. Because Socrates knew that the Athenian people did not understand the meaning of piety, Socrates asks Euthyphro to answer the question "What is piety?" He wants to see if Euthyphro is as wise as he claims to be, and if he is not, Socrates will debunk his claim.…
The main argument in the dialogue is Euthyphro’s third definition on piety; which is closely related to Euthyphro’s fourth definition. His third definition on piety proposed that “piety = what is loved by all the gods” and “impiety = what is hated by all the gods”. (9A – 9E) Socrates challenged this definition by introducing the ‘Euthyphro Dilemma’, asking Euthyphro: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?” (10A) He then clarify his point by illustrating the principle between active and passive properties. We accept that X is a carried thing because it is being carried. ‘Being carried’ is the state of X that is being carried, the state of X that is acted upon. X can only be in the state of being carried if someone decides to carry it. Additionally, if piety is defined as “what is loved by all the gods”, it is loved for a reason; not because it is loved so it is loved by those who love it. Thus, pious is loved for the reason of being pious, not because it is being loved. And god-loved is loved by all the gods because they love it. Socrates proves that Euthyphro’s third definition is faulted as “being pious” cannot be defined as “being god-loved”.…
A young man by the name of Euthyphro involves himself in a conversation with the well known Socrates. During this conversation Euthyphro attempts to impose unrealistic beliefs concerning piety. Euthyphro is the plaintiff in a murder suit that he is filing against his very own father. Euthyphro believes that he has a case against his father, the reasons the young man comes up with does not sufficiently satisfy Socrates. This text is a great example of beliefs of a young man; against the wisdom and knowledge of older man. In the final analysis Socrates conversation with Euthyphro, smashes all of Euthyphro’s ideas and conceptions. Euthypro’s belief system has diminished and what he thought may be sound, good reasoning concerning the gods proves to be meaningless conversation. Euthyphro speaks in fallacy, Socrates sees right through it; and that is apparent in his questioning toward the young man. W. K. Clifford wrote an essay titled “The Ethics of Belief” in which he “argues that there is an ethic to belief that makes it always wrong for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” (Pojman/Rea 498) This short essay of comparing thoughts and beliefs will compare how Euthyphro by Plato, shows the importance of belief in comparison to that of W. K. Clifford in “The Ethics of Belief.” Furthermore, it is important to see how the text on Euthyphro’s conversation with Socrates, by Plato, truly shows that belief is invalid without proper evidence to justify it.…