God And Morality Analysis

In this paper, I argue that, in Plato’s Euthyphro, Euthyphro’s defense of the view that his father is a murderer is not cogent enough to effectively prove his point. I will present the argument that Euthyphro spends more time talking about himself and his decision to prosecute his father than he does discussing the actual crime. I will then present the argument that Euthyphro does not use specific, factual evidence to bolster his judgement.

* But since different Gods think different things are good how do we decide what is holy

According to Euthyphro, piety is whatever the gods love, and the impious whatever the gods hate. At first this seems like a good definition of piety, however, further inquiry from Socrates showed that the gods have different perspectives vis a vis certain actions. As the gods often quarrel with another, piety cannot simply be what is loved by gods, since they differ in opinions. For, if the gods agreed on what is just, surely they would not constantly fight with one another. Therefore, the first proposition of Euthyphro is wanting. Socrates, thus, is teaching a particular style of inquiry whereby, facile statements are challenged by their own propositions. Socrates does not make any claims initially, but rather questions the logical consequence of Euthyphro’s answer.

The conflict between the Divine Command Theory and the Euthyphro objection come with questions about who sets the rules of morality, and how it can be assumed that these rules are justifiable. On one hand, the Divine Command Theory defends the idea that an act is morally right because God commands it and wrong because He commands against it. This sets God’s will as the foundation of ethics, making morally good actions those that comply with His commandments. This religion-based concept becomes problematic when it runs into the Euthyphro dilemma, founded from Plato’s Euthyphro dating back to 395 BC. The argument centralizes on why it is that God commands rightful actions, bringing in the question of, “Are moral acts commanded by God because they are morally good, or does God command things to be right because He has good reasons for them?” The Euthyphro argument creates its foundation on the idea that either God has reasons for His commands, or that He lacks reasons for them. This divides up the Divine Command Theory in two ways, either making the theory wrong or portraying God as an imperfect being. If God does have reasons for His commands, then these reasons are what would make the actions right or wrong. God’s reasons would stand as the basis of morality, instead of God’s commandment itself. God having reasons would insinuate that goodness existed before any direction from God because otherwise, there wouldn’t be any commandment. Morality would have to stand independent

Euthyphro and Socrates meet unexpectedly, in the court of justice. Meletus pursued charges against Socrates, and Euthyphro was prosecuting his own father for murdering a laborer. Prosecuting his own father contains disloyalty to the gods, or impiety. Socrates is on trial for the corruption of the youth, creating his own ideas or methods in religious matters. Due to the prosecution of Euthphros’s father, Socrates thinks that Euthyphro is an expert in religious maters and laws. Euthyphro is committed to his knowledge, assuring everything is correct according to him. Euthyphro confirms the understanding of piety and holy and instructed to Socrate, which may assist him in trial against Meletus. Euthyphro states that holiness is oppressing religious

He says by learning from Euthyphro he could strengthen his argument in court and claims it would give him a possible appeal in court by saying he was under the tutelage of Euthyphro, an expert in his field, and that by challenging Socrates Meletos would be insulting and challenging the teachings of Euthyphro. It is through this method that Socrates poses as the willing and eager student and Euthyphro the wise teacher. Euthyphro first presents the argument, which by all accounts due to his proclaimed expertise he believes to be absolutely and irrefutably the truth, that holiness is the practice of persecuting religious offenders. Socrates disagrees with this notion saying there are many other holy deeds besides persecuting religious offenders. Euthyphro suggests holiness is what is agreeable with the gods to which Socrates cleverly explains that the gods often quarrel mirroring that of humans in the sense that the opinion of one may not be the shared opinion of all.

Socrates helps Euthyphro to give meaning to the word ‘piety ', and this serves to bring a new meaning to the respect to the divine beings and help in the explanation of the whole context of the divinity in the society. In this manner, there is the need to create a clear definition and help Euthyphro in getting ideas that he can use to teach Socrates to answer the resulting question about the piety. This is to enable Socrates to have a string defense against the charge of impiety and help in tackling the challenges that he faces in the society. The story and the relationship between Socrates and Euthyphro arise when Socrates is called to court to answer to the charges of impiety by Meletus, (Plato et al, 1927). In the courts, Socrates meets Euthyphro, who comes to the courts to prosecute his father who is a murderer.

However in Plato’s Euthyphro, it can be argued that Socrates plays a similar role. In the Euthyphro, Socrates discusses piety in general and what makes things and people pious. Socrates claims he wants to learn more on the subject so that he may better defend himself against the treasonous charges against him. In a way, Euthyphro represents the traditional Athenian way of thinking. He believes in and supports all of the gods and does not submit to Socrates’ prodding of the subject, although he does walk away from him in frustration at the end of the dialogue. However it can safely be said that most Athenians would agree with Euthyphro’s opinion of the gods and to disagree could most certainly be punishable by law, as Socrates was. Socrates’ search for the definition of piety is a difficult one that tests Euthyphro’s patience and ultimately leaves the characters and the reader without an answer. Every time Euthyphro proposes an answer, Socrates is quick to counter it with some thought. Interpreting Socrates’ tone and meaning here is important. Some may see Socrates to be quite demeaning in these instances, almost teasing Euthyphro because he claims to be so pious yet he cannot even define the word. In this way, similar to Aristophanes’ Clouds, Socrates plays a subversive role in the Euthyphro.

This leads to the dilemma or the main question asked by Socrates which is “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods (Plato, Euthyphro)” Or in other words does God say things are morally right because they are by nature, or do they become morally right because God says they should be. Since Euthyphro believed in more that one god, that meant that they were all pleased in different ways and that there would be no possible way that something could be defined as pious or impious. With that being said there is no way to declare something right or wrong.

suggestion that what makes right actions right is that the gods love, or approve of them. First, there is the problem that since questions of right

Socrates was a moral philosopher who was accused of impiety and was about to be tried for a crime, the nature of which no one seemed to understand. The trial and death of Socrates has four dialogs known as the Euthyphro, the Apology, the Crito, and the Phaedo which describes the process of Socrates’ controversial and insightful trial that raises the questions about human morality. Within the story we learned that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as clear-cut as some might think, Socrates forces the witnesses of his trial as well as ourselves to come to conclusions which result in a paradox that conflicts with the individual beliefs of his audience. In the event in which, Socrates poses a question to himself and Euthyphro, an attempt to answer the question "What is piety?" It has a specific tie to the events in “The Trial and Death of Socrates”, for Socrates had been accused of impiety and was about to be tried for the crime of heresy. The Euthyphro dialogue was written twenty-four centuries ago, and its conclusion is devastating for the whole idea that holiness and morality are very well connected. The idea that, “if God does not make something good by commanding it, but rather instead identifies that which is good, what measurement of morality does he use to make this judgment?” If something is right because god commands it, then it follows that something would be just as right if God instructed differently. If god declares that it is right to

The consequences of accepting that the goodness of actions consists simply in the fact that God favours them are obviously disagreeable. However, the consequences of accepting the alternative also appear unfortunate. If it is maintained that God favours certain actions because they are objectively good, it seems that their goodness is independent of His will. But such a view appears to be inconsistent with the conception of God as the omnipotent creator and sustainer of all that is. It means that there is a realm of moral values which exist quite apart from God's creative will and to which His will must conform. Such a view must inevitably appear blasphemous to all those who believe in God, for it makes God out to be less than He is.

In Euthyphro, Socrates is on his way to his trial for impiety when he runs into Euthyphro. Euthyphro is on his way to trial as well, but he is the prosecutor in his trial. He is trying his own father for the murder of a servant. Socrates asks him to teach him about what is holy so that he might be able to defend himself better. Socrates asks Euthyphro to teach him, but as you read you

When conflicts such as moral contradictions and inconsistencies arise, conversations including ethics and moral reasoning is the only way to solve these inconsistencies. Those who are genuine devotees of a certain religion may question if their religion’s moral instructions make sense according to one another. In these distinct cases, intelligent resolution of the claims can only be sorted out by putting in place an unbiased standard that can classify the competing viewpoints. This is where ethics comes in as the neutrality in the form of critical thinking, proficient arguments, and careful analysis.

Throughout this text, Euthyphro and Socrates try to answer one question; what is Piety? Euthyphro and Socrates meet outside of the king-archon’s court and Socrates questions Euthyphro as to why he is there. Euthyphro explained to Socrates that he is going to try to prosecute his father for murder after his father left a worker to die because the worker murdered somebody. In doing this, Euthyphro is going against what most people consider to be pious. Socrates is intrigued at Euthyphro’s actions and wants to know more “I adjure you to tell me the nature of piety and impiety, which you said that you know so well” Socrates continues to push Euthyphro to describe to him what piety means to him and after every answer that is given, Socrates continues telling Euthyphro that the answer could be better. Every version of the answer given by Euthyphro is more precise than the