The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad. In order to establish my thesis, I will start by stating and explaining the argument that Socrates presents, I will
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
The divine command theory, utilitarianism, Kant’s duty defined morality, natural law theory, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics are the five types of ethical theories. The divine command theory states that what is morally right and wrong will be decided by God. Utilitarianism states that “Action “A” is morally right if and only if it produces the greatest amount of overall happiness. Kant’s duty defined morality states that what is important is acting for the sake of producing good consequences, no matter what the act is. Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil. The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories.
Explain and evaluate Socrates' claim in the Apology that "the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being," and briefly analyze and discuss the particular method he uses to discover the truth (i.e., dialectics or the Socratic Method), using at least two examples from Plato's Euthyphro and/or Apology. Do you agree that a human being cannot live a fully satisfying life if he or she remains ignorant, like the slavish prisoners in Plato's cave? Why or why not?
According to the Euthyphro, the main characters like Socrates and Euthyphro have their own notions about piety. The way the main characters understand piety is different from each other. The first, Euthyphro examines himself and brings evidence against his father. The second, Socrates asks Euthyphro, have you known what a piety is if your attitude is confident that you indict your father for a crime. (Plato (1997), p.77.). Socrates tries to look for one standard definition of piety. Let, have a look at what piety means to Euthyphro. He comes up with the several suggestions about piety: “to prosecute a wrongdoer is pious and not to prosecute is impious”; “what all the gods hate is impious, and what they all love is pious”; “where there is piety there is also justice” (Plato (1997), p.88.). In Euthyphros actions to prosecute his father he relies on this statement. Even though, he considers himself as pious man, Euthyphro is pious in prosecuting his father.
The Divine Command Theory is an ethical theory that states that God decides what is morally right and what is morally wrong. The theory argues that to be morally good one must do what God says and abstain from doing what God forbids. The question that is going to be discussed in this essay is if The Divine Command Theory provides an acceptable account of what makes an action morally right and others morally wrong. In this essay I will argue against the previously mentioned statement using the following arguments: The inconsistency between theists, the dependence of morality on religion and finally, Euthyphro’s dilemma.
In The Euthyphro, Socrates had a dialog with Euthyphro who claimed to be an expert on the subjects such as holiness, Gods, piety, justice, etc. Socrates began his philosophical debate by asking Euthyphro to define piety and impiety. Not completely satisfied by Euthyphro’s definition that, “Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods”, Socrates pointed out that gods were known to disagree and argue; therefore, they may not have had unified opinion on what is holy. To further frustrate Euthyphro, Socrates continued his argument by asking the following question, “Holy is beloved by the gods because it’s
Socrates and Euthyphro ran into each other outside the court of Athens. Socrates is there because he is charged for impiety by Meletus, while Euthyphro is there because he is prosecuting his own father for an unintentional murder of a household slave. After listening to the reason of Euthyphro’s presence at court, Socrates is flattered by him, as he thinks surely a person bringing charges against his own father must have great knowledge on piety and impiety. He thinks no one will do such a thing unless they are absolutely sure it is the right thing to do so he asks Euthyphro to teach him what holiness is and what piety and impiety is, so that it might help him in his trial against Meletus. In reply at first Euthyphro says that piety is what he is doing, prosecuting the person who offended religion by murdering, even though he is his own father. He then further suggests that what is holy is what is agreeable to the gods, in response to which Socrates points out that the gods often quarrel, so what is agreeable to one might
Socrates and Euthyphro meet at the Agora, and begin discussing what brings them to the king-archons court. Euthyphro begins telling Socrates, that he is bringing a case against his father who murdered a servant. Socrates is astounded that Euthyphro is bringing an indictment against his father, and asks for wisdom concerning a statement of piety so that he may fight his own accusations impiety. Euthyphro first proposes that “What is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious.” Socrates examines the argument and concludes that the gods “like what each of them considers beautiful, good, and just, and hate the opposites of these.” Furthermore what is loved by one god is hated by another, thus disproving the argument made by Euthyphro because
For the individuals who are searching for a tasteful meaning of devotion, the discourse is a failure, for no conclusion has been come to concerning the exact idea of that goodness. It has now and again been kept up that the genuine motivation behind logic isn't to answer addresses yet rather scrutinize the appropriate responses that have been given. Anyways, this is precisely what Socrates has been doing in this back and forth. Euthyphro has displayed a few speedy and prepared responses to the inquiry "What is devotion?" however upon magnification, each of these questions has appeared to be unsuitable.
Plato’s Euthyphro is based on a lesson between Socrates and Euthyphro outside of the Athenian court about the definition of pious or impious. Euthyphro was surprised to see Socrates there and even more curious to find out why he was there.
“May it be for the best. If it so please the gods, so be it.” (Cooper 44). Socrates states that if it pleases the gods then thats whats supposed to happen. Socrates has his morals that he grew up with and so does everyone else. On his way to his death some might say he should escape since his trial is unjust. Some might argue, like Socrates, that it isn't right for him to escape and go against his word. His friend Crito is trying to argue the reasons why Socrates is in the right for escaping, while Socrates is arguing the opposite, why his morals will not allow him to do so.
The argument Euthyphro and Socrates go about talking about is a murder case Euthyphro is about to be a part of. Euthyphro is prosecuting a man who is being prosecuted for murdering a murderer. It begins as such, the man murdered was caught in a murder and the second murderer tied him up and threw him in a ditch, but forgot about him so the first murderer died of hunger and the cold weather. The second murderer was Euthyphro’s very own father so, with this in mind, he is having trouble determining if he should prosecute his father to be guilty or not guilty for the action he committed was indefinitely an illegal act, but, I this time period of the case, the murderer would have been facing a death sentence in the end anyways if he would have been caught by an authority.
For thousands of people, what is holy and what is moral comes from religious texts that act as a guide for individuals for how they ought to live their lives. This idea of holiness and morality for many is deeply rooted in the understanding that it originates with God; it is a necessary condition for it to be binding. However, what if what is holy and moral didn’t originate from God’s goodness, rather it comes from other mediums and is itself good thus being approved by God? This idea of existence and thought is a question that can be outlined in Plato’s, The Euthyphro.