Socrates uses a rather elaborate argument to show this definition is also insufficient. If the gods approve of something because it is holy, their approval cannot be what makes it holy, he says. If an act is holy because the gods approve of it, we still do not know what makes it holy or why the gods approve. It seems that any attempt to define holiness by the will or approval of the gods is bound to fail. Even in contemporary society, we tend to associate morality with some kind of divine will, but through the Euthyphro, Socrates seems to suggesting we think along another line altogether.
From there, Thrasymachus then states that justice, from the perspective of the ruler, is obeying their laws (339b). Socrates responds with three counter-arguments that thwart this definition: that rulers can make mistakes and pass laws that are against their interests (339c), that because of this then obeying the law would not be doing the interest of the ruler (339e) and that therefore obeying the law would not be in the interest of the stronger (339e). So justice cannot be doing the interest of the stronger (339e). Thrasymachus does not accept this
|Socrates says, “Come then, let us examine our words. The thing and|Socrates has found a flaw in Euthyphro’s claim that whatever the gods like | |the person that are dear to the gods are holy, and the thing and |must be holy. Simply by stating that sometimes the gods disagree about what | |the person that are hateful to the gods are unholy; and the two |they like, Socrates has logically shown that this can’t be the way to judge
This question is not easy to answer, and is in fact, quite complex. Many sides are presented throughout the text of The Apology, most notably in the cross-examination with Meletus, and as well as Socrates’ explanation of the Oracle of Delphi. One must explore both sides in order to come to a conclusion over whether Socrates was impious or not. There are many indications which lead to the invalidity of the charges of impiety against Socrates. The charge that the Athenians placed on Socrates was that he “disbelieved in the gods”, or was an atheist.
McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God.
Phil 115 March 4, 2013 Apology and Euthyphro After Socrates claimed that he was not like Sophists or Presocratics, he answers the question as to what led him to make his so-called false accusations? He answered by explaining that he had developed a reputation of wisdom, but a type that was limited and human based. He added that it was not the kind of wisdom that gave him the power to enforce his beliefs on matters associated with the Sophists and the Presocratics. Socrates explained that he gained his reputation by a prophecy given by the Oracle at Delphi to his friend Chaerephon. Socrates told the tale of how Chaerephon had gone to the oracle and asked as to whether or not there was one wiser than Socrates, to which the Oracle replied, no.
The issues with this option mainly deal with the definition of a theistic God. If morality is independent of God and God’s commands only exist because the moralities of actions are predetermined, then God is no longer sovereign. If morals are independent of God’s commands then God is not sovereign over morality. This goes against the definition of a theistic God which defines God as the creator and ruler over everything. It also puts limits on God’s power.
You have chosen to avoid me and bring me to court without any warning, “where the law requires one to bring those who are in need of punishment, not instruction.” In this clarification from the Apology Socrates is stating that he is not persuading others to become evil. He is not converting others into wickedness. Why would he put himself into a situation that will harm him? If he is corrupting the youth he is doing it without the intention of harming others or himself. It was his accuser’s responsibility such as Meletus to approach him about the matter and warn
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
In the beginning of Book I, Socrates convinces Cephelus and Polemarchus that justice is not only doing good to friends and wrong to enemies nor is it only useful in certain aspects of life. Rather, justice is something that should be in every aspect of your life. But when Thracymachus questions this theory by saying justice only benefits some, Socrates (and Plato) is forced to clarify. He goes on to explain why justice is beneficial to every type of person. He explains that the strong can only be powerful when they make just choices, otherwise they will be overthrown by a united majority.