Now Socrates asks Euthyphro, “What subject of difference would make us angry and hostile to each other if we were unable to come to a decision?” Socrates claims that subjects such as the just and the unjust, the beautiful and the ugly, the good and the bad are certain subjects that would cause differences between them when they were unable to come to a satisfactory conclusion and would cause Socrates and Euthyphro as well as other men to become hostile towards one another. To this, Euthyphro agrees. From the above argument, Socrates says that “different gods consider different things to be
226). So why emphasize this objective viewpoint? According to Burnyeat, given both Socrates’ controversial reputation in Athens (as an alleged anti-democrat) and the narrow margin by which he was convicted, it would appear as if his sentence could have been issued by an overly-vindictive tribunal. Therefore, Burnyeat attempts to recreate the philosopher’s trial, seeking legitimate answers to the following questions: “Is he [Socrates] guilty or not guilty? How would you have voted if you had been on the jury in 399 BC?” (pg.
For example, he asks if he knows anyone who “believes in human phenomena but does not believe in human beings” and he uses that to prove he indeed believes in the gods. The last appeal that Socrates uses in his defense is Pathos. Pathos is the appeal of emotion. Pathos in this situation is used to strike the judges sense of emotion. He appeals to the people who have a sense of duty to Athens and the state that Athens is in.
Socrate's Guilt There is a distinct difference in attitude towards Socrates in the works of the Apology by Plato and the play Clouds by Aristophnes. While both address the controversial nature of Socrate's philosophy of thought, perceptions of Socrate's character differ. This presentation of his character can sway audiences and reader's views regarding Socrate's guilt with his charges. The apology establishes the earlier charges against Socrates during his trial. Namely that he studies things in the heavens and below the earth and that he makes the worse argument into the stronger argument.
Both Socrates and Crito present arguments for why he should or should not escape and the reasons behind each respective decision. After the formal interrogation, Socrates concludes that the act of escape would not be just, and he would be morally unjustified if he were to commit this act. The same probity is applied in Stephen L. Carter’s, “The Insufficiency of Honesty” where he links integrity with honesty. This essay addresses three constraints, Integrity cannot be attained without honorable and moral judgment; integrity may cause conflict that must be resolved whether or not it produces or protects interpersonal harmony; and a person who has integrity requires valor, virtue and rectitude. Having integrity forces one to forfeit all selfish or materialistic beliefs and values.
It describes a God that is personal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. Theodicy is one criticism against the second premise of this argument, which attempts to try and explain why an all-PKG allows evil to exist (Sober, pg. 111). Theodicy claims that some evils are necessary as they have the property of being “soul-building”. Soul-building evils are meant to force human beings to live through adversity and in turn strengthen our characters (Sober, pg.
Thucydides’ work, however, was not simply a book written about Athens as the protagonist which was defeated by its foolish over-ambition, he wrote about the Athenians and Spartans with similar objectivity, acknowledging both their weaknesses and virtues. Thucydides regularly demonstrated a “determination to establish what happened and why”. He believed one of the primary reasons for the decline of Athens was because of the political problems with democracy and selfish imperialism. Whilst he used facts to support this belief, he expressed it most directly when quoting speeches. I will examine the purpose of Thucydides’ work by assessing his omissions, the events he chooses to focus on more closely, and his own analysis of his work.
This idea portrays the view that ethical and moral values are independent of religion, which means moral action does not necessarily require religious belief. This way of thinking would have been unbelievable at this time, and would probably even be questioned in the present day. Initially, when Socrates asks Euthyphro what piety is, he responds that piety is what he’s currently doing, which was indicting his father for killing a slave. This response does not satisfy Socrates because he is looking for a definition of what piety is, not an example of piety. So Euthyphro goes on to define piety as what the gods love.
The Consistency of Socrates In the books the Apology and the Crito, Socrates leaps back and forth pertaining the issue of whether or not laws should always be abided by. A tension has formed from readers questioning Socrates indecisiveness on the matter. This tension created can help be brought to rest after closely reviewing what Socrates is really saying. Throughout the texts, he makes a firm claim that it is important to accept the consequences dealt by the laws when perceived as disobeyed. But also that it is of equal importance to justify one’s actions when thought of doing nothing wrong.
An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” King goes on, giving examples and quoting philosophers, before he draws the conclusion. How could he obey and expect his followers to abide by the laws of Birmingham when segregation itself is morally wrong and therefore an unjust law? Any logical reader would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at