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.
The Apology of Socrates The word apology comes from the Greek form of the word “apologia”, which means “defense”. It has a different meaning than our modern understanding of the word. In Socrates’s instance, he is forced to make an apology, or rather a speech in his own defense. He states that he must refute two sets of accusations. The first is from the old longstanding charges that he is frivolously curious and questions the truths of the earth and sky, and the second is current legal charges that state that he recognizes a different God than the God recognized by the state, as well as creating his own false deities (demigods) as well.
After the examination Socrates concludes that the act of escape would be just and he would be morally unjustified and committing the act. The first argument that Crito presents to Socrates brings up the issue of what the majority think. Crito says, “Many people who do not know you or me very well will believe I might have saved you had I been willing to give money, but that I did not care to do so.” (Grude, Pg 47) Crito’s argument is clearly concerned with his own reputation, especially with what the majority
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
With god/s grounding the moral the foundation of the moral becomes arbitrary because it would only be good because god says its so. Also calling god good would not make any sense since he decided what good is or isn't, so how could he be good unless the moral was grounding him? If piety was a certain care of the god’s we could look to do always what is Pious and in return we would be worshiping/caring for the god/s if they exists. If the God’s are looking to something the “moral,piety” then if you act pious in your actions through life you will be in a way worshiping the god’s, because you are honoring what they already honer. The problem with this idea is when people think god grounds the moral
The first charge is that Socrates is corrupting the young. Meletus is being asked questions by Socrates that proves that he is incorrect with his charges and that he isn’t to be taken seriously. Ultimately, in this questioning, Socrates gets to the point that Meletus is trying to tell the court that he, alone, corrupts the youth. He goes on to say that this is the opposite of what usually happens. How can one person corrupt the entire youth by themselves?
Plato however sees that living in ignorance is living away from the truth and being a philosopher, argues that we should always question the world we live in. An example of this would be in Plato’s analogy of the cave because the prisoners were happy in their un-real world and playing their games but even though they were extremely ignorant to reality, they were very happy and content with their lives. Plato believes that this is wrong and that only philosophers are brave enough to become enlightened and see the world for what it is. Socrates also agrees with Plato on this and a quote to prove this would be that “a philosopher does not indulge in any pleasures of the body, he cannot gain wisdom through hearing or seeing they being finite” which applies to wise philosophers and not ignorant men. Contentment should be out of fullness and not laziness.
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.
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?
In my opinion it lets him relate to the individuals who are witnessing the trail and for those who are brought charges to him and giving him the ability to freely defend himself with the “truth”. He discusses further that his speech is not prepared and improvised unlike his accusers, which their speeches where full of non truth. After questioning Meletus who is the main individual bringing Socrates before the jury on the reasonings behind his claims and somewhat embarrassing him and emphasizing how much the Athenian government needs Socrates to stay relevant through the times. At the end of his disposition the jury finds Socrates guilty, he was given the choice of his punishment and pick death suggested by Meletus, he declared that an appropriate penalty couldn't be insisted since he feels he didn't intentionally wronged