That way, if Meletus were to prosecute him, Socrates could say that he is now under the tutelage of Euthyphro, whose authority on these matters is unquestionable. If Meletus were to prosecute him even so, Socrates could point out that Euthyphro is in fact the one responsible for teaching him and that Meletus should prosecute Euthyphro instead. Euthyphro encourages this suggestion, pointing out that with his expertise in religious matters, Meletus' claims could not stand up long against Socrates in court. Then holiness takes a prominent position in the argument. Socrates insists that Euthyphro begin to instruct him regarding what is holy and what is unholy.
He asked Euthyphro this question to test his intellect and she if he is indeed as smart as he claims. Euthyphro gave several answers to the question. Piety is doing as I am doing; that is to say, prosecuting anyone who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of any similar crime—whether he be your father or mother, or whoever he may be—that makes no difference; and not to prosecute them is impiety (Plato & Jowett, n.d). Socrates is not satisfied with the answer Euthyphro has given to
Alma Askins Rowe Professor Nathan Poage Philosophy 1301 January 25, 2013 The Charges against Socrates Socrates is described as having neglected his own affairs, instead he was spending his time discussing virtue, justice, and piety wherever his fellow citizens congregated, seeking wisdom about right conduct so that he might guide the moral and intellectual improvement of Athens (Perel). Using a method now known as the Socratic dialogue, or dialectic, he drew forth knowledge from his students by pursuing a series of questions and examining the implications of their answers. Socrates had charges brought against him by a man named Meletus, who was a young man that Socrates did not know very well. These charges that were brought against him caused the indictment of Socrates. One of the charges in the affidavit written by Meletus against Socrates is that he is an evil doer "corrupting the youth" (Grube).
The second horn says that since God is on the side of something therefore it is considered to be right or pious. Now, Socrates and Euthyphro was follower of the first horn of dilemma. They both thought that since something is pious therefore God loves it. It is evident from the statement, “Socrates proposes to amend the definition, and say that 'what all the gods love is pious, and what they all hate is impious.' To this Euthyphro agrees” (Plato, 2008).
The dialectic simply means question/answer format. The major points to be highlighted in this text have already been discussed in the summary section, and they are: the essence criterion, the one over the many principle, and love of wisdom. The essence criterion is a feature of Platonic dialogues whereby he wants the answer to Socratic questions to reveal the true nature of whatever it is the characters are trying to learn about. For example, the essence of a chair is its "chairness", or in other words not only its function (to be sat upon), but also its nature (whatever the nature of a chair may be). And Euthyphro has trouble giving the essence of piety because he instead gives examples or incorrect answers.
The first problem for Vlastos consists of Sellars’ attempt to discredit Self-Predication within the language used by Plato. One of the main staples of Vlastos’ interpretation consists of always looking at the text found in the dialogues, especially the Parmenides. So Vlastos finds it highly objectionable to believe that “the first part of the Parmenides is a deliberate and sustained critique
Santa-Maria also says that while Franklin promotes the idea of being like Socrates, Franklin is in fact more like Epicurus. Santa-Maria ends his essay by stating that he believes that Franklin’s interpretation of virtue is a failure, and that moral perfection is impossible. I believe that Santa-Maria’s critical essay was very clearly written and thought-provoking. He expresses his ideas very clearly, and has a lot of background information to back it up. It was very easy to comprehend what he believed, and easy to see why he felt this way.
Short Paper II – Passage 1, Apology of Socrates, 20: C-D The Apology is a fictional interpretation of Socrates’ trial and defense against the charges of impiety, written by Plato. Therefore, although the main character in this dialogue is in fact Socrates, his voice is inevitably resounding from Plato’s perspective. Plato revered Socrates to the nth degree, and provided the audience with a distinguished, admirable, although slightly pompous version of Socrates. The purpose of this passage is used to establish the fact that Socrates was not and did not consider himself to be a sophist, and such a role was deemed to be almost insulting. Essentially, Socrates stated that he did not possess wisdom, like sophists believe they possess, but only human wisdom, which implies the fact that he knew that he knew nothing at all.
A number of definitions of virtue are offered by Meno but they all merely come together to form Greek cultural customs. An analysis is made by Socrates to show that they do not meet the necessities of a definition. Meno tended to name various examples of virtue rather than naming what is common to all the examples. Meno’s first definition of virtue is broken up into many parts; the virtue of a man, which consists of “being able to manage public affairs and in doing so to benefit his friends and harm his enemies and to be careful that no harm comes to himself” the virtue of a woman, “she must manage the home well, preserve its possessions, and be submissive to her husband.”(Meno, 71e). Meno also states that “There are very many other virtues, so that one is not at a loss to say what virtue is.
Deborah Avie, 9/13/2012, Phil, 3301(Bohorquez 1st paper) Although Euthyphro attempts to justify his actions by resorting to his religious knowledge and belief of piety having to have a universal understanding to both parties, relationships between justice and pious acts. Socrates argues that these actions or not justification but instead misguided, together Euthypro and Socrates have some kind of dilemma. Socrates try to get Euthyphro to agree that piety is a part of justice. This dialogue has implication for any ethical theory, or theory of value in general, that identifies rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, which are being commanded or forbidden by a god, or gods. While attempting to explain the reasoning in Euthyhro piety is a part of justice, we first have to understand the Venn diagram of a just act, and a pious act, this method bring about