To refute this, Socrates asks Euthyphro “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods.” This brings to mind the concept of causality proposed by Immanuel Kant, so the question arises, who loves who, do the gods love the people because they are pious or do the people love the gods because they are the gods, and it is pious to love the gods. Causality tells us that event A causes event B, which is an effect, it should also be mentioned that event B cannot come before event A. Socrates further complicates the matter by stating, “nor is something carried because it is something carried, but it is something carried because it is being carried” in this case the carried thing is changed because it is carried
Euthyphro’s Dilemma is when Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Does God love goodness because it is good, or is it good because God loves it?” Euthyphro’s Dilemma is that God determines what is good and evil, right and wrong. This dilemma challenges the Divine Command theory because according to Euthyphro’s Dilemma we would be obligated to do something wrong because God commanded it. This conflicts with the Divine Command theory because it would imply that cruelty could be morally right if God told us to do so. The idea that cruelty can be morally right goes up against the belief in the Divine Command Theory because it proposes that an action's status that is morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God
Socrates says, “But surely, as I was saying just now, it would be most correct to say that it is truly speaking a lie-- the ignorance in the soul of the one to whom the lie was told. For a lie in words is a sort of imitation of this affection in the soul, an image of it that comes into being after it, and not an altogether pure lie” (382b7-11). In his explanation, Socrates believes that a lie in words is not a complete and total lie. This is
His reasonings support his overall idea that an unjust law or act, does not defend retaliating through unjustly means. Additionally, both King and Socrates are on a disaccord concerning the determining factor of just and unjust behavior. While Socrates relies on rational argument to be the expert on justice and the morality law, King sees the determining factor as grounded from God. As shown above, both Socrates and King have differing views on the obligations of a citizen in respects to the laws of the
In Meno, Meno and Socrates are discussing Virtue and attempting to develop a definition of what Virtue is. At one point in the dialogue Meno states that Virtue is “desiring fine things and being able to acquire them” Baird and Kaufmann, 156). In their attempts to analyze this definition they discuss evil, what it is and whether or not it is ever desired by people. I will use this discussion to answer the beginning question from Plato’s perspective and show that, through Socrates and Meno, Plato demonstrates that evil is a form of ignorance, and as we know from Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, ignorance is one of the most damaging states a human can exist in. In On Free Will, Augustine comes to a very similar conclusion.
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
In other words, without theism atheism would not exist, as such without a claim made by the Crown the defense is not needed. In addition, Ockham’s razor also puts the burden on the theist because an atheist accepts the world as it is whereas a theist brings in the idea of a God on top of the natural world. In short, Craig’s stance required more work and he fell
This is seen when Ea is stating, “I caused the exceedingly devout one to see dreams, he heard the decision of the gods' than as 'the exceedingly wise one” (11. 187). Compassion then seems to be the only logical explanation for his survival. Utnapishtim also proposes to be a favorable person because of his submissive attitude towards his gods. However, Utnapishtim is obedient to the gods in immoral ways.
Along with pride, I think that there were themes of piety, lies and deciet, and justice so I believe that the Greeks may have seen the Gods as a way to enforce good behavior/a moral code of good, although they show to be ignorant, act "bratty", and can be decietful which may be believed to cause humans to be bad. So it explains their bad behavior for them in a
Concepts: It is the study of knowledge why did it have to be this way and who made it this way. In essence it is a search for answers. He was at that time trying to convince people that their Gods were not perfect and were not the model piety. When he says “Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious do the gods to pious action because they, too, see it as corresponding to higher standard of piety.” Plato 's cave is the idea that everything we see is just a shadow of the real thing. And we should instead be freed from our chains and go into the light of understanding this.