Euthyphro And Failure Of Definition

Euthyphro And Failure Of DefinitionIn the Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro contemplate over what is piety. What makes something pietistic and what makes something wicked, thats the headland throughout the text, but it all comes down to the prise of a exposition. In the end its uncertain whether piety is even defined and bookd by both sides. Socrates though develops criteria of a definition and ethical determine on his own in the process of questioning of piety. Socrates talks most value conflicts and whether or not there is a resolution to them.The first question asked about piety from Socrates, Euthyphro says Very well, I say that whats pious is precisely what Im doing now prosecuting those who commit an injustice, such as murder or temple looting (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 102). Euthyphro first claim is incomplete form of definition. Socrates rejects Euthyphros claim. Socrates says You see my friend, you didnt teach me adequately earlier when I asked what pious was, but you to ld me that what youre doing is pious, prosecuting you father for murder (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 103). It has to be relevant or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations, which is universal. I agree with Socrates because Euthyphros claim is more of an example, rather a definition. A book could be a piss book but you wouldnt say a cookbook to define what a book is because it wouldnt make any logical sense and frankly not universal. In order for a definition to be real, it must contain essence, the characteristic something has to happen to be that kind of thing, and a model, a standard basis of semblance. Socrates says consequently teach me what the characteristic itself is, in order that by concentrating on it and using it as a model (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 103). A proper definition should have a characteristic that is used every time you define that something, and if does not contain that characteristic then it isnt that something. A model is simply just a comparison of wha t it is and its opposites. Euthyphro says In that case whats love by the paragon is pious and whats not loved by the gods is impious (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 103). In the beginning of text, Euthyphro mentioned that the gods quarrel therefore Socrates says And havent we as well said that the gods quarrel, and differ with one another, and thats mutual hostility among them (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 103). If the gods differ, then they all dont agree. Pious can be god-loved and god-hated, because gods do differ and dont all agree. Just akin human beings, gods can have conflicts and become enemies if theyre not settlement. Whats right and wrong shouldnt be determined by gods and religion because value conflicts can occur amid gods or within a religion. Socrates supports my claim by saying Then the said(prenominal) things, it seems, are both hated and loved by the gods, and so the same things would be both god-hated and god-loved (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 104). Euthyphro says hardly Socrates , I think that on this point, at least, none of the gods do differ- that anyone who has unjustly killed another should be punished(Cohen, Curd, and Reve 105). Even if the gods do agree that murder is wrong, they still do disagree on something. Gods find themselves in value conflicts in which someones beliefs/ethics in right and wrong contradicts with other beliefs/ethics. When a criminal is indicted, they are not fighting whether what they did is right and wrong, they simply just denying acting unjustly. By denying to act unjustly, their simply trying to do lesser their punishment. Socrates says So they dont argue that someone who acts unjustly should not be punished, though they do, perhaps argue about who acted unjustly, what his unjust action consisted of, and when he did it. The facts of the case are whats questioned and argued about in court cases. Right and wrong is not stable when it comes to opinions people use more of their own opinions and values to determine whats right a nd wrong. When people consort to their own opinions of whats right and wrong, value conflicts can occur and lead to no resolution. People can believe in absolutism, which believe certain actions are short right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Euthyphro easily would like to accept pious and impious they way he defined it but Socrates continues to question and use logical contradiction. Just because something is agreed though doesnt make it morally right. Socrates insist though if pious is really whats god-loved and impious is god-hated he said Consider the following is the pious loved by the gods because it pious? Or is it pious because its loved (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 106)? Both Socrates and Euthyphro agree that gods love pious because its pious, but yet in the earlier statement made by Euthyphro he believed whats god-loved is pious. It simply doesnt make sense because each contradicts itself and doesnt define piety. If gods love double-dealing than its pious, if gods love murder its pious, and if the gods love anything its pious, that statement is just to abstract. Euthyphro then define piety as being holiness. What exactly makes someone holiness? The question in the texts is being questioned by another question. Holiness is believed by Euthyphro to be tending to the gods. Socrates says Then if piety is tending to the gods, does it benefit the gods and make the gods better (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 111)? What exactly does the god benefit from humans? Horse trainers tend a horse and make it faster, a farmer tends farm to grow the plants, and a dog trainer tends a dog so it can act more appropriately. Euthyphro is unable to experience a clear answer to Socrates of what the gods benefit from humans but says the things that are winning to the gods in prayer and sacrificethose are the ones that are pious (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 112). Praying is simply asking the gods and sacrificing is giving to the gods. Socrates says So, on that account, piety would be knowing how to ask from the gods and how to give to them (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 112)? If the gods give us stuff we benefit from, what can humans possibly give them to their benefit? I believe its more of a trade, but I touch sensation what we give them is not equal to what they give us. Socrates says Then piety, Euthyphro, would be a sort of expertise in mutual trading between gods and men (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 113). But like I said, I dont believe they can benefit from humans, and that we get the better out of the trade. Socrates brings up But how are they benefited by what they receive from us? Or do we get so much the better of them in the trade that we receive all our goods things from them while they receive nothing from us (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 113). Its unreadable what the gods benefit from. Euthyphro says What else do you think but accolade and reverence (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 113). Honor and reverence is what the gods benefit from us through trade. Pleasing the gods is simply honor and reverence, and honor and reverence being from sacrificing, piety can be claimed to be beneficial to gods. I feel there its not relevant to say what benefits someone in the end is loved by someone, thats because my right and wrongs is more developed through opinions and values. But Socrates says So is the pious pleasing to the gods, Euthyphro, but not beneficial to them or loved by them(Cohen, Curd, and Reve 113). Euthyphro replies No, I think thats its in fact the most loved of all (Cohen, Curd, and Reve 113). Pious is now again what is loved by the gods. In preceding(prenominal) statements, that whats loved by the gods cant be used to define piety because it contradicts itself with the presentation of conflicts.Piety is still undefined. The Euthyphro ends where it begins, with no clarification of piety. Socrates continually reject Euthyphtos claims because he applied his mind to the matter in many ways to f ind the truth compared and followed ethical relativism, while Euthyphro was more absolutism, in which he already constituted his own truth and rather then questioning, he accepted what he believed in. Throughout the text there wasnt full clarity what pious and impious. For a definition to be accurate, it has to be universal, a model, and have essence. If Euthyphro didnt know full clarity he would of never ventured to prosecute his own father. Socrates questioning lead to answers, but not the one he wanted. Socrates found out about ethical values of relativism and absolutism. People shouldnt set their right and wrongs based on gods and religions, because gods disagree amongst themselves. Socrates doesnt leave the lecturer with any insight on how to resolve value conflicts but gives more insight on understanding them and how value conflicts develop. I believe the Euthyphro is actually a value conflict. It ends with no agreement just like a conflict of value.