And still, some may also see the crime as just or unjust, and not everyone will have the same opinion about the matter (8). Socrates then restates his earlier question as to how Euthyphro can still prove that proceeding against his father could be seen as just in the eyes of all the gods (8). Because of these statements, it is much harder to tell if it would be at all possible to prove Euthyphro's side of things. Though it would seem that he is getting closer to proving his own beliefs since it is his job to prosecute the wrong-doer, Socrates still wants him to understand the morals behind his
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?
Validity in the Charges of Impiety against Socrates Impiety is commonly defined as a lack of proper concern for the obligations owed to public religious observation. Plato’s Apology consists of a speech made by Socrates, a well-known philosopher, in defense of his life and conduct at his trail. Socrates was accused of being impious through accusations such as corrupting the youth of Athens, not recognizing the gods that are recognized by the state, as well as inventing new deities. The question then becomes, with these accusations in mind, are the charges of impiety against Socrates valid? This question is not easy to answer, and is in fact, quite complex.
This staple of his beliefs is why he doesn't fear death, but in fact looks forward to it. By escaping he is committing an unjust act against the state, and committing unjust acts ruins the soul. With a ruined soul there is no point in living life as the soul is the only important thing, not the body. Therefore the most important thing is not only living life, but living a just life. While Socrates arguments may be sound in his opinion, I'm not sure if I agree with them.
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 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
Andrew Helm Philosophy Paper 1 The purpose of this essay is to prove that Socrates is not guilty of the charges brought against him. I will do this by giving a posteriori and a priori piece of evidence for each charge. Socrates was charged with both being an atheist as well as corrupting the minds of children. Socrates immediately is able to make his case on trial, as he gives real life examples of none other than himself referring to spirits. Soon after, we are able to find that spirits are the children of god.
Around 400 BC Plato, one of Socrates greatest admirers, wrote a dialog of the speech Socrates makes at the trial where he was accused of not recognizing the gods that the state recognized, and for corrupting the youth of Athens. Socrates is brought before a jury to defend his case and uses the method of cross-examination to prove his argument. Throughout the duration of the trial, Socrates uses concrete evidence and his distinctive logical to prove to his accusers that he is innocent. Instead, Socrates establishes a strong argument for his claim that he is essentially one of the most positive influences on the youth while recognizing that the gods do exist. Before Socrates went to trial to prove his innocence, in addition to already believing he was the wisest in all of Athens, he confirmed his assumption by asking the oracle.
Is God Necessary for Morality? The Euthyphro dialogue opens with Socrates meeting Euthyphro outside the courts in Athens. Socrates has been called there to defend himself against charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. Euthyphro has come to prosecute his father for killing a servant who, in a drunken rage, murdered a slave. Socrates suggests Euthyphro must be an expert in religious matters to be willing to prosecute his own father, and Euthyphro agrees: "I should be of no use, Socrates, and Euthyphro would not be superior to the majority of men, if I did not have an accurate knowledge of all such things."
Socrates In Plato’s “Apology,” Socrates is found guilty of corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods of Athens. The punishment for his crimes was death. “Crito” takes place in jail in which Socrates resides before his death. During this period, Socrates’ friend Crito comes to visit him and tries to persuade him to escape. Socrates, being the philosopher that he was, argued on whether he should escape or not.