Morality In The Euthyphro, By Plato

For example, Zeus was the king of the Greek gods. To appease Zeus was thus to maintain favor, fortune and prominence: To oppose him or otherwise displease him was, essentially, unthinkable…or illogical. Therefore, an appeasement of the gods was as necessary as the air to breath. However, Aristotle would present logical arguments which would demonstrate a need for those within Greece (and the ancient world) to rely more upon logic than myth, as logos was the more prominent ‘trait’ to abide by when all the layers were stripped away.

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.

Plato’s rebuttal of the Divine Command Theory What is the Divine Command Theory? The Divine Command Theory is described as “certain actions are right because they are what God wills us to do”. There are many people in this world who believe their ethical and moral decisions are made because of the religion they follow. Although most religion have their own interpretations of the Word of God one of the basic beliefs is the God wills us to do good things and stay away from evil things.

Logos is the reasoning argument that may contain deductive or inductive argument. Ethos is the character and the credibility of the speaker. Pathos means the emotional response of the audience. (Ong, 1971) Rhetoric is used in expressing one’s view but when it is used in explaining the concept of God then it can raise certain problems. Three appeals that Aristotle had mentioned are not enough to explain the concept of God.

The grand claims in the umbrella of “super-human wisdom” include believing certain actions please or displease the gods, the existence of life after death, and such matters indeterminable to humans through the medium of divinity. In Plato’s Euthyphro, Euthyphro and Socrates bicker about Euthyphro’s behavior, and its interpretation from the gods. Euthyphro claims his prosecution of his father for an accidental crime would fancy him in the eyes of the Gods, yet Socrates rebuttals, exclaiming “ But, in the name of Zeus, Euthyphro, do you think you have such exact knowledge about the positions the gods take, and about the pious and the impious, that in the face of these events, you’ve no fear of acting impiously yourself in bringing your father to trial?” (Euthyphro, 7).

He believes that not only does eternal law that provide guidance regarding what men should do or avoid if they wish to be happy or good, but it also issues commands and prohibitions of actions that are not legitimate (Strass & Cropsey 1987, p. 186). Revealed Law, according to Augustine, finds its origin in God's revelation through the Bible. He believes that, to resist such law "is to defy God's own ordinance, inasmuch as civil society is intended by God Himself as a remedy for evil and is used by Him as an instrument of mercy in the midst of a sinful world" (Strauss & Cropsey 1987, p. 200). Chapter 13 of Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans starts out with these words: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established"(Romans 13:1, NIV). Augustine often refers to this particular passage in the Bible when talking about Revealed Law.

Kimberly Cronin 30 September 2015 Professor Frazer-Simser Short Essay Plato’s “Euthyphro” The Homeric Gods are worshipped by the Greeks as being all good. Likewise, God, a single entity, is also seen as all good. The difference between these two is that whereas the Homeric gods have human emotions and desires that affect their decisions, God is all good and does not hold biases towards anyone or anything.

Therefore after punishing the king, Dionysus says “And if you had known how to be wise when you did not wish to be, you would have acquired Zeus' son as an ally, and would now be happy.” The author explains that peace and happiness can only be achieved by praying to the Gods and that making the Gods your enemy never a good thought. When the grandfather of the kings asks for forgiveness saying, “Gods should not resemble mortals in their anger.” Dionysus replies, “My father Zeus approved this long ago”. From the above we can say that even a God could be unforgiving and unsympathetic.

Hume and Kierkegaard are responding to philosophical mindset which held belief in the existence of God as something that can be rationally proven. In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments, both philosophers take issue with the a posteriori and a priori proof that have been used by philosophers to prove God’s existence. While their critiques of these arguments have much in common, the conclusions they draw from their analysis could not be more different— Hume ultimately denies God’s existence while Kierkegaard upholds it. While a full investigation into Hume’s argument against God’s existence and Kierkegaard’s argument for the necessity of the leap of faith, we can see how their critiques of these rational

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.

The conclusion of the Euthyphro dilemma is that divine command theory is false. The dilemma got its name from Euthyphro, one of Plato’s early dialogues. In Euthyphro, Socrates and the eponymous Euthyphro, a priest, discuss the essence of goodness. While the work reaches no definitive conclusions about the nature of goodness, it raises many challenges to divine command theory. In what follows, I will highlight some important and/or interesting problems raised by the Euthyphro dilemma and try to show how it refutes divine command theory.

Section 1: question 3 Euthyphro’s Dilemma is a modernized version of the question that Socrates askes in Euthyphro: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” This dilemma or argument proves or contradicts that the Divine command theory is wrong. The following argument order was also discussed in class, but this sequence by Jonathan Pearce seemed like a better explanation. (1) 1.

Rachel Kim PHIL 100 Professor Thibodeau November 10, 2016 The Euthyphro Dilemma The Euthyphro Dilemma is the questioning of the relation between God and righteous actions. Option A is that the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious. Option B is that the pious is pious because it is loved by the gods.

Socrates asks Euthyphro “is the holy, holy because it is loved by the gods?” or “is something loved by the gods because it is holy?” Euthyphro was charging his father with murder. Not that he physically put his hands on one, but while another was awaiting the decision, his father left the man to die of starvation and lack of water. In Euthyphro’s eyes, his father was the murder of this man. The reason he is prosecuting his father is because he believes in the Gods and that no matter if someone is of kin if it is not right then it just isn’t right.

Socrates’ position towards the authorities was inconsistent in The Euthyphro and The Crito. He questioned the authority in The Euthyphro but defended and obeyed it in The Crito. 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.