Thereby, the dialogue leaves readers with unanswered question “Does goodness exist?” and if it exists what goodness is? In the other words, it means that Euthyphro tries to find answer but due to lack of knowledge and a straight thinking he could not find it. Nevertheless, Socrates
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.
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.
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
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
Moreover, these philosophers also subscribe to the notion that religion should not influence various areas of religion, such as government, unless it can do so in a way that is reasonable. Numerous people and institutions during the course of the respective lives of each of these thinkers would have argued differently: that religion could supersede reason in some instances and govern over aspects of life that have traditionally, and most prudently, been under the subjugation of reason. These two philosophers, however, would argue the converse and never put religion above reason.
Even though Franklin criticizes the influence of religion on people’s life, he also understands and tolerates the social use of religion. “I grew convinced that truth, sincerity, and integrity in dealings between man and man were of the utmost importance of felicity of life; […] Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such; but I entertained an opinion that, though certain actions might not be bad because they were forbidden by it, or good because it commanded them, yet probably these actions might be forbidden because they were bad for us, or commanded because they were beneficial to us.” (Franklin 55) These feelings of solidarity formed a common identity which eventually results in the beginning of the American Revolution. Away from the Anglican Church and the English royal dynasty, people formed their own identity independently. They became a
We cannot serve someone who has no need. Self sufficient people can deal with you and do things for you. For example, God can do things for us but we cannot be friends with him. We notice that friendship between two good people is not possible. When Socrates says that good people cannot be friends he means that perfect beings or the self sufficient beings cannot be friends, but if we have good character we still have problems and we still have needs, so good human beings will still have friends.
Praying is essential when believing in God, but praying should be meant to thanking the invisible, not asking for more. This proves how one desires for more--desires to have something beyond what the eyes can see. What if the God we claim to know is only The Creator, not a
This, he says is more important than knowing the facts about God or performing rituals. This is one reason Kierkegaard supports the knight of infinite resignation over that of faith. The knight of faith is also seen as something comfortable but Kierkegaard doesn’t think we should feel so comfortable. The knight of faith seems to jump into the infinite and come back and seems to have no faith, which Kierkegaard is uneasy with. The knight of faith wants the material world to be the way he wants it and remains focused on the fact that he believes in God but is getting it all back.