Socrates Fallacy In Euthyphro
In an analysis of Plato’s Euthyphro, Peter Geach claims that Socrates commits the Socratic fallacy when he refuses Euthyphro’s first definition of piety. Socrates rejects the definition given because it does not give a formal definition of what piety is, but instead offers examples of things and actions that are pious. Geach believes that this is a substantial fallacy committed by Socrates, one that may prevent him from getting at the truth of the matter. I will first expand on Geach’s Socratic fallacy, as well as explain why this fallacy presents itself as a problem for Geach. Then I will examine Euthyphro to see if Geach is correct in assuming that Socrates commits the Socratic fallacy. In addition to Euthyphro, I will look at another one
…show more content…
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
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