Divine command theory has many weaknesses. The weaknesses of this theory are best shown by Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro, which poses a question. Are actions morally good because they are approved by God or the gods, or whether God or the gods approve of action because they are morally good? If someone believes that morally good acts are good because they are willed by God, then God could command us to do anything, and it would be right for us to do it. Whatever God commands becomes the principle of moral rightness.
Louise M. Antony argues an important ethical concern in her article, “Good minus God”. Can a person do good deeds without God? Arguing from an atheistic point of view, Antony believes that a person does not need to depend on God in order to complete good deeds. I agree, whether Christian or Atheist, all can perform good deeds, but who ultimately defines good versus evil? Antony subjectively defines morality and uses nature as her source.
Socrates is treating Euthyphro as the teacher, when in fact Socrates is teaching Euthyphro. It seems like Euthyphro is not thinking along the right line at all. Let’s take into account the Divine command theory, which says that the moral action is the one of God says is moral and if God prohibits it then it’s not moral. This theory is widely held to be refuted by Euthyphro argument. Euthyphro, the argument, gives two alternatives to the divine command theory that either morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
According to dictionary.com, Piety is defined as “reverence for God or devout fulfillment of religious obligations” (dictionary.com). There has been controversy about the exact definition of piety and how it applies. Some believe that it is more related to religion and others believe that it has more to do with morality. Piety vs impiety is the main topic of the first chapter, Euthyphro, in Plato’s The Trial and Death of Socrates. The chapter focuses on and follows the dialogue between the two philosophers as they delve into the true meaning of piety and impiety as a means to figure out how Socrates can defend himself in court.
Euthyphro was prosecuting his father for doing something wrong which would be impiety, not holy, but Socrates states that is one example of piety however not a broader conclusive definition. Knowing when to pray and what to pray for on a specific occasion however Euthyphro stated holiness is what is loved by god’s and unholiness is what is hated by gods. Socrates continued his challenge by stating that gods do disagree about what is just and not just and some things are hated by gods and not hated by
According to the lecture, piety is a term that refers to what it means to be good or holy in the eyes of the gods. In the reading, Euthyphro gives several different definitions of the term piety. The definition that stood out to me the most was the one in which Euthyrphro says, “…what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious” (Euthyphro, 8). This seems like a simple definition. However, Socrates objects this definition on the grounds that the gods disagree among themselves as to what is 'pleasing'.
Piety is the quality of being religious and reverent. It is used in a way to refer to win the favor or forgiveness of God. Piousness is an act of doing right things and being the righteous in the eyes of the God and according to Holy scripts, as it is mentioned in Holy Quran “… and whoever respects the signs of Allah, this is (the outcome) of the piety of hearts.” Piety is also a believe or point of view which is accepted with unthinking conventional reverence. The argument between Euthyphro and Socrates started when they met each other at king-archon’s court, where Socrates explained him that he is under indictment by one Meletus for corrupting young and not believing in gods in whom city believes. On the other hand, Euthyphro was there to prosecute
Now then, King uses morality to help explain the difference between just and unjust laws. King says “A just law is a man-made law that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” (356) He goes on to say “Unjust……. Is out of harmony with the moral law.” (356). This illustrates for the clergymen where each type of law stands in a moral position. Each type of law affects a person’s personality in a negative or positive way.
Socrates does not make sound arguments because although his premises are logical, they sometimes have nothing to do with the original argument. In Plato’s Euthyphro, the Euthyphro dilemma argument states whether the Gods love the pious because it is pious or it is pious because the Gods love it. In order to support this distinction, Socrates’ first premise in supporting this conclusion is the example of being carried. Socrates claims that there is a difference between something that is already in the state of being carried because it is carried or if something is carried because it is in the state of being carried. Similarly, there is a difference between something being in the state of being loved because it is loved and something being loved
And yet again, Socrates is able to react to this quote by causing Euthyphro to question his statement by replying, “And to give correctly is to give them what they need from [e] us, for it would not be skillful to bring gifts to anyone that are in no way needed.” (p.19). Through this reiteration of Euthyphro’s statement regarding gifting the gods, Socrates is able subtly hinting that a true, “good” entity should not require to be gifted from a being of a lower status and instead should help others as it is in their “good” nature. For God wants to help humans for the sake of working