Paste your essay in here…Solenne Smith
Professor Tschemplik
Western Philosophy
25 February 2018
Death of Divine Intervention
The argument that morality is defined by the gods is one that Socrates disputes heavily in Euthyphro. While it is true that every ethical system needs some kind of foundation and the root of such can be difficult to decipher, it is evident through the words of Socrates that the moral platform is not divine in the slightest. In Euthyphro, Socrates argues against the Divine Command Theory which suggests that morality and immorality is commanded by the divine. This proposition is contested with a dilemma known as the Euthyphro Problem. This “problem” asks whether right actions are right because God commands them or if right actions are commanded by God because they are right. This issue begs several questions. Does morality come directly from the gods or do the gods simply enforce what is moral and immoral? Through the words of Socrates in Euthyphro, it can be deciphered that morality does not come directly from the gods.
In Euthyphro, Socrates is patiently awaiting his impending trial. His prosecutor, who is called Meletus, has charged Socrates with the counts of corrupting the youth of Athens as well as not possessing the right kinds of beliefs about the gods. Speaking of Meletus, Socrates declares, “He is likely to be wise, and when he sees my ignorance corrupting his contemporaries, he proceeds to accuse me to the city as to their mother” (Plato 3). Socrates recognizes that his wisdom is too advanced for the people around him but he does not flee to a place where they will understand. Instead, he takes his punishment with minimal hesitation. While waiting for trial, Socrates meets professional priest and self proclaimed expert on piety, Euthyphro. Euthyphro is waiting to bring murder charges against his own father. Whilst waiting for their subsequent trials, the two philosophers get into a heated discussion on the topic of impiety and piety through the eyes of the divine. Socrates argues against the divine command theory, which is where the aforementioned Euthyphro Problem is manifested. Are right actions right because the gods commands them? These are tricky questions to decipher. This implies that the divine are the creator of goodness. The counter argument begs the question: “are right actions commanded by the gods because they are right?” This infers that gods are not omnipotent and rather something beyond binds them. But what could be beyond the divine? Do human beings somehow stretch beyond them in a sense that we define our own morality? This is very possible especially given the fact that through history, the ideals and ethics in any given place change as time goes on. Socrates argues that humans innately know what is moral and immoral, and piety as seen by the gods only shows an example of piety.
But how do we know what God commands? This question begs whether, “the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” (Plato 12). This idea of piety can be tricky to decipher, and this dilemma often puts people in a place where they question their own piety. For example, as mentioned, Euthyphro is bringing his father to trial because on accounts of murder. According to him, “one should only watch whether the killer acted justly or not” (Plato 10). At the same time, it is brought up that it is impious of a son to prosecute his father for a murder. But how true is this? Morality is not defined or determined by a religious institution, especially according to Socrates. As discussed, what is dear to the gods is pious and what is not is impious according to Euthyphro. There is no true definition of piety or holiness. What is holy and pious is different from what is approved by the gods for “the god-loved is not the same as the pious” (Plato).
Besides piety and godliness, other topics were discussed in Plato’s Euthyphro. Talk of fear, shame, and embarrassment are covered in this passage. This is very fascinating to me. One of my favorite quotes in this passage occurs when Socrates talks about others opinions: “I’m afraid that my liking towards people makes them think that I pour out to anybody anything I have to say…” I find this sentiment very interesting for the most part because I relate to it. I have a strong tendency to carry an open book mentality and share my thoughts and my life events with many people. I was always raised to be an honest person because my single mother taught me to be open with her and to lie as little as possible. Socrates’ immense fear of appearing too candid is one that I have faced as well. In Euthyphro, it is discussed that fear covers a larger area than shame. While most times shame and embarrassment may come after experiencing fear, the fear itself is more overwhelming than the aftermath. I tend to go into things regardless of fear because I know that if something is meant to be it will be and if it is not then the rejection at the end will have come for a reason. Socrates claims that shame and embarrassment are results of wickedness. This may be true. When one commits an evil crime, they oftentimes feel remorse after the fact. This feeling is directly related to the wickedness that was experienced. This really ties into the argument of good and evil that is still being heavily debated today.
The idea of wickedness and honesty ties into the argument against gods being the reason for morality. As it may be assumed by the people who rejected Socrates beliefs, the divine set the standards for what is considered good and evil. Socrates definitively argues that this is not proof of piety in morality but instead it is an example of piety. Piety can be quite hard to define and this can explain why Socrates was charged with ‘true’ impiety. Euthyphro throughout the dialogue attempts to explain and explicitly define piety three times and failed each time. Since there is no true definition of piety that can be established, it makes it quite hard to reason with the idea that Socrates was put on trial for ‘true’ impiety. How can you be charged for something with no true definition? This question is brought up through Euthyphro by Plato. This relates back to gods and their role in morality. If they defined the true standards by which we live, then they would have laid out piety and how to achieve it in a way so that Euthyphro and Socrates would not be arguing about the situation. In closing, there is no evidence that the gods are the standard rule of morality which helps to support the idea that Socrates was not rightfully prosecuted for impiety.
Works Cited
Plato.