He says that “ The things and the men that are pleasing to the gods are pious, and the things and the men that are displeasing to the gods are impious.” Socrates approves of this definition because it is of a very generalization. But he also states that Euthyphro’s definition has flaws because the gods would disagree on what is considered pleasing. Socrates’ case is that the gods are very irrational when it comes to arguments and disagreements. Normal rational people would find answers and come to a settlement on the correct answer, but when it comes to the gods any slight disagreement causes them to become enemies and angry towards each other. Socrates goes on to
The Trial and Death of Socrates The “Apology” refers to the trial of Socrates’ conviction of not idealizing the gods that Athens idealized, and for corrupting the youth of Athens and creating new gods. Socrates starts off his defense by requesting to the jury to not criticize him for his speech aptitude since he was not thinking about what he was saying, but letting it all flow out hastily. He then goes on to tell his audience that his adversaries have given his audience misleading information (21). He continues to blame Meletus, his indicter, and his reason being that Meletus pressed charges on Socrates due to the fact that Meletus was jealous of Socrates. Socrates also mentions himself as being atheist.
They continue to bring up the topic of pious and unpious actions. Euthyphro claims “the pious is to do what I am doing, to prosecute the wrongdoer…not to prosecute is impious.” Then, Socrates exclaims he is the defendant in his case because he believes it is difficult to accept the common knowledge the people believe about the goods, since there is no plausible evidence. As the dialogue continues, Socrates claims that “different gods consider different things to be just…for they would not be at odds with one another unless they differed about these subjects…(page 9, 7e)” Then the same things would be both pious and unpious. Simply, the nature of Socrates is to question and further complicate matters by counter arguments. Then Socrates states that the matter is finding who the wrongdoer is rather than how he must be punished.
Socrates continued his point in saying that “an action or a man dear to the gods is pious, but an action or a man hated by the gods is impious” (Euthyphro, 7a). However, Socrates also points out that gods, just like people, can have their differences and disagreements about anything. Therefore, there could be no unification in what is right and wrong, good and bad, or pious and impious. Again, we see Socrates’ doubt in having more than one god. If the gods can have their disputes about piety and impiety, then how would we ever know what exactly is the right course of action?
According to what Meletus is saying, Socrates is guilty, yet not guilty and therefore, does not deserve punishment. Clearly, Meletus does not understand what he is talking about, and he doesn’t understand the implications of the statements he has been making towards the
Euthyphro The Socratic dialogue Euthyphro attempts to answer the question what is piety? Euthyphro claims to know what piety is while Socrates admits ignorance and wants to be educated on the matter because he is being charged with impiety. Euthyphro is charging his own father for murder, an impious action, and he is so confident this is the right thing because of knowledge of piety. This is how Socrates knows Euthyphro can teach him about piety because he does not just say he knows what it is he is acting on it, possibly sending his father to death. Socrates says “…before he could have seen his way to bring such an action”.
It teaches us the meaning of free will and being able to independently decide what is truly pious or impious based on personal beliefs. In brief, the dialogue, Socrates tells Euthryphro how he is being put on trial for supposedly corrupting the youth and not fully believing in the god’s that the city believes in. Socrates doesn’t believe that he is guilty for any act, and seeking help from Euthryphro to educate him in how to act during his trial. With that, Euthryphro then shares a time when he was prosecuted for putting his father to trial due to a murder that his father unintentionally committed, and even though it was an unintentional act, it was still seen as a crime to the Greeks. After hearing what Euthryphro has to say about the prosecution of his father, he realizes that Euthryphro is a very wise man.
Loyalty to the gods is first shown in the end when Creon is choosing what to do with Oedipus. Creon and Oedipus were not on good terms, because just hours earlier, Oedipus threatened to have Creon killed. Creon could have easily had revenge, but, instead chooses to “learn from the God the course of action I [he] should follow” (Sophocles 468). Creon shows his allegiance by not taking the chance he has, doing whatever he wants with Oedipus, and choosing to ask the gods how Oedipus should be punished. Creon’s steadfast act proves that he puts the gods before himself.
In Euthyphro, Socrates did not directly express what he felt was the meaning of piety but rather questioned the accounts by Euthyphro. It seemed as though Socrates, throughout the entire dialogue, dissected and broke down every definition and meaning to what pious and impious meant to Euthyphro. While Euthyphro tried to defend and prove his point it was rendered mute as he jumped from answer to answer slowly being cornered to the inevitable; that he did not in fact know the full definition or had a true understanding of what pious and impious meant. (Plato 20) In Apology, Socrates is accused of several things. Among them are studying heavens and below earth, which as a consequence leads to corrupting the youth with his teachings.
There is an arrogant kind of sarcasm to this argument. He shows that indeed others do not know anything at all but they think they do. In fact this is what made the accusers mad enough in the first place to put Socrates on trial. To Socrates this is wicked because those who are wise know that they know nothing. “To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know (Apology 29).” This goes back to his statements that he is only wise in that he knows that he knows nothing, while others profess knowledge about things they know nothing about.