He is certain that prosecuting his father is the just and moral course of action because he believed it was commanded as such by the divine who are supposedly innately good. Unable to see the soundness in Euthyphro’s claim, Socrates proposes a question that has become known as possibly one of the oldest ethical questions in the history of philosophy. Socrates proposes the following question to Euthyphro, “Is what is holy (or moral) approved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is approved by the
Glaucon further acknowledges an additional set of goods which people “love for their own sake, and also for the sake of their consequences” (36), such as peace or intellect. Despite Socrates’ acceptance of these points, the two remain at war over how these points holistically apply to justice. Is it being just only consequentially valuable, or does it carry any instrumental benefit on its own sake? To further his argument, Glaucon performs a thought experiment – the Ring of Gygesthat – in attempt to discover the underlying motivation for acting justly. Glaucon describes a situation in which both a perfectly just person and a perfectly unjust person possess a ring that could make them invisible, thereby allowing them to act without fear of consequences (38).
Both Plato and Descartes believe in Rationalism, and they also fear uncertainty. These two philosophers want to answer the same basic question, “What is the difference between opinion and certainty” (Palmer 39). Plato believes that all
The most influential version of the moral argument for belief in God can be traced to Kant (1788 ), who famously argued that the theoretical arguments for God 's existence were unsuccessful, but presented a rational argument for belief in God as a “postulate of practical reason.” Kant held that a rational, moral being must necessarily will “the highest good,” which consists of a world in which people are both morally good and happy, and in which moral virtue is the condition for happiness. The latter condition implies that this end must be sought solely by moral action. However, Kant held that a person cannot rationally will such an end without believing that moral actions can successfully achieve such an end, and this requires a belief that the causal structure of nature is conducive to the achievement of this end by moral means. This is equivalent to belief in God, a moral being who is ultimately responsible for the character of the natural world. Kant 's arguments will be discussed later in
The divine command theory is a theory of an act is morally right because it is commanded by God and an act is immoral because God forbids it. The divine command theory has faced significant arguments that arose from Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma. In Euthyphro, the dialogue started with Socrates questioning Euthyphro what is the state of nature, of being pious, in response, Euthyphro declares that being pious is the good with whatever the God or superior commands. This arose the following question, “Are acts pious because the gods love them, or do the gods love actions because they are pious?” (Landau pg67). Specifically, does God command us to do whatever because it is morally right, or is whatever we do morally right because God commands us to
Materialistic desires can be defined as any non-essential item one owns. And lastly, a noble life is a life full of purpose and adherence to said purpose or purposes. Socrates’s argument rests upon two essential premises. One, that truth, self-discovered wisdom, logic, and reason are the most important aspects of life. And secondly, that one should forgo material desires and concern over reputation for the sake of the first premise.
As evident in the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, whatever the gods justify as virtuous is unquestionable because holiness is dependent on God (Indiana University 18). Euthyphro states, the holy is that which is loved by gods (Indiana University 18). Something is moral if it pleases God. God being good, He loves only that which is good thus He wills to be moral only that which is good. The understanding of the goodness of God should be done metaphysically and not morally.
the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
Agathon is talking about desire rather than really talking about what love is. I think this because desire is something you want while love is something that is something that you already have and will always have. This helps to bring in Socrates’ viewpoint about love. When he questions Agathon’s speech, he asks if love is a love of something and Agathon agree. This is important because you can love something that you already have as well as something that you have never had.
According to a philosopher, Pascal Wenger, one 's belief about God existing is based on self-interest. He argues that it is in our interest to believe that God exists and hence from his point of view it is rational for us human beings to do so. Furthermore, he adds that if we believe in God 's existence and he truly exists then, we are bound to receive a reward in heaven but if he doesn 't exist we won 't have lost a thing. Finally, he concludes those who do not believe in God 's existence; then he exists they are bound to receive an endless penalty in heaven. Also, other arguments about the existence of God include the ontological perspective which tries to argue from the point of abstract reasoning.