So I asked myself if it was really so dangerous for the citizen of Ancient Athens to have divinities of your own. And the brief paper of John A. Scott “Why Meletus Demanded the Death Penalty for Socrates” where he investigates the same issue helped me to clear it out. In his work, he has a sentance from Professor Wheeler’ Alexander the Great:” Religion simply was the state, and the state was religion. Impiety was treason, and all treason involved impiety…” So in what way Socrates did not comply with the state’s gods he was supposed to believe in? Originally, what gave rise to his activity of walking around the city with a purpose of finding someone who possess wisdom greater than he had himself, was the provision of the oracle of Apollo that ‘there is no one wiser than Socrates’.
While awaiting trial Frank 's father Matt Fowler decides to give Mr.Strout a punishment he felt was necessary. Mr.Fowler went out and ended up murdering the man who murdered his son. While reading the story the audience dominantly takes Frank 's father 's side on the situation rather than feeling the same way about the two murders. People seem to sway towards Mr.Fowlers side of the story because they say it was out of love, Richard Strout deserved it, and Frank was innocent unlike Mr. Strout. Love is the key to all relationships throughout the world.
However, Socrates objects this definition on the grounds that the gods disagree among themselves as to what is 'pleasing'. Socrates said that Euthyphro had previously stated that “gods are in a state of discord…and that they are at enmity with each other” (Socrates, 8). Socrates also says: “Then according to your argument, my good Euthyphro, different gods consider different things to be just, beautiful, ugly, good, and bad, for they would not be at odds with one another unless they differed about these subjects would they?...They like what each of them considers beautiful, good, and just, and hate that opposite of these?” (Socrates, 9). Euthyphro agrees, proving that certain things disputed by the gods would be both pious and impious due to the fact that different gods consider different things to be holy. I believe Euthyphro’s self-contradiction shows that he does not know as much about piety as he claims.
This makes him hateful and hostile towards younger boys. In the beginning of act 1 juror 3 says he grew up calling his father sir, which was a sign of respect, then later in the text he brings up statement of what the man who lived below the boy and his father who heard his say he was going to kill his father; the father was known for putting his hands on the son, juror 3 says “the kid said he was going to kill him and he did kill him.” (37; act 1) with juror 3 thinking that young boys are trouble, and also knowing that the suspect and the victim had problems in their relationship people would say that this gave the boy a motive to kill his father, juror 3 has set in his mind that from knowing the young boys history and where he grew up that he could potentially kill someone.
In Apology, Socrates faces possible execution as he stands trial in front of his fellow Athenian men. This jury of men must decide whether Socrates has acted impiously against the gods and if he has corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates claims in his defense that he wants to live a private life, away from public affairs and teachings in Athens. He instead wants to focus on self-examination and learning truths from those in Athens through inquiry. Socrates argues that "a [man] who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if [he] is to survive for even a short time" (32a).
Socrates as a wise man understands that if religion forms humans’ personality and views on surrounding, then it means that there is no place for you as a human being. Thus, Socrates tries to argue with Euthyphro to find the definition of goodness and asks Euthyphro questions. Euthyphro gives several definitions of goodness such as prosecuting his own father is an act of goodness, but Socrates quickly responses to him that it is only instance but not the definition. Then, he replies to Socrates that goodness is something that is pleasant to gods. However, Socrates is not satisfied with such definition and responses to Euthyphro that many of conflicts exist among the gods and what is pleasant to one god might be unpleasant to another.
An unknown author once said “Stand up for what you believe in even if it means standing alone.” In Lessons Before Dying” will Jefferson change his way of life believing in god and allowing faith to guide him through his sins? In “making a murder” It is a mystery who did the crime but all we know is that Brandon confessed to the crime and is going to prison for a very long time. There are similarities and differences in the story and documentary. The similarities between Lessons Before Dying and Making Murder. Is they both have something to do with murders.
Euthyphro’s father and relatives were angry on him for prosecuting his own father, the family members think that it is impious for a son to prosecute father for murder. Explaining piousness to Socrates, Euthyphro argued “The pious is to do what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer, be it about murder or a temple robbery or anything else, whether the wrongdoer is your father or your mother or anyone else.” He further argued that Zeus is the best and most just of gods and that he bonds his father because he unjustly swallowed his sons and he castrated his father for similar reasons. After these statements, Socrates objection for piousness started, Socrates questioned Euthyphro that there are other pious actions also apart from this one he further added that to his question that any action of ours or another’s is pious and if it is not that it is not. In these chunks of questions Socrates was trying to identify meaning of piousness in the eyes of Euthyphro. It became clearer for Socrates when Euthyphro replied “What is dear to God is pious, what is not is impious.” It was showing that for Euthyphro piousness is related to the
Guilty or not guilty? This is the key question during the murder trial of the young boy, who accused of fatally stabbing his father. Jurors in the movie of Twelve Angry Men have their own way of defining the term “reasonable doubt.” Therefore, in this paper, I will analyze this movie from using a decision model, dialogue, advocacy and inquiry, and three Cs. The movie of twelve Angry Men uses the rational decision model, which is a series of steps that decision makers should consider if their goal is maximizing the quality of their outcomes with a thorough analysis of alternatives. (Organizational Behavior).
If we remember in the beginning of our story, Oedipus sought to find out who killed Laius. Oedipus even went so far as to damn himself if the killer should share his hearth and home. Now, while he is referring to a curse in this scene, Oedipus none the less is a seeker of the truth. The symbolism of truth appears again in the scene where Oedipus is seeking the truth regarding