Plato: the Republic and the Euthyphro Dilemma

491 Words2 Pages
Plato: The Republic and Euthyphro Dilemma These three past weeks I have learned about Plato and his dialogues, one of them is the Euthyphro dilemma. In his dilemma he tries to discover the nature piety. The answer that Euthyphro gives is that what is good is what is loved by the gods. Here we can see a contradiction that Socrates points out which is that some gods love and hate the same things at the same time. This would turn morality into something subjective. An action cannot be good and bad at the same time. The real issue that we encounter here is this question: is something good because God says so or does God say so because something is good? The conclusion that Socrates arrives about this dilemma is that a person can be good independent of a god. What is good is good within it. People should not behave in certain ways only because you think that God is asking it. If God were to command that rape is good, it would still not be so. Rape is bad within itself. Just like this there are more issues that people should consider bad even if in the future god would say that it is good. People should think critically about their actions regardless of what a god would command. The other dialogue of Plato that we discussed was the book I, and II of The Republic. This books deals with the theme of justice. Plato concludes that there are four kinds of life. We can either seem just and be just, seem just and be unjust, seem unjust and be unjust, seem unjust and be just. Glaucon concludes that the best one is seeming just but actually being unjust. In this way people can have power to determine what is just or unjust. If you can be unjust and still get away with it, if you can steal lie, and still make people believe that you are not and that you are doing the right thing, it would be a better life according to Glaucon than to be just and have a reputation of not being .
Open Document