In Euthyphro of Plato, we are introduced first to a conversation that goes on between Socrates and Euthyphro with an explanation by Euthyphro on his intention to prosecute his father on the murder that he strongly believes that he has committed in his presence. It is clear that Socrates from the start of Euthyphro has one objective in mind; questioning the ones around him and provoking them in questioning their own lives aspects. A good example is the question that he directs to Euthyphro that at first glance looks confusing. The argument clearly states that the morality idea is solely determined by gods or some divine authority kind. Should we prove something as being good because it is thought to be so by the gods, or do gods only approve something because it is good? The statements are almost contradicting thus making it difficult to determine the true statement or if they are in any way equivalent.
Two trains of thought that are different are present; something can be said to be holy by its approval or believe that it is approved due to it being holy. My belief is that a great morality awareness and piety among people was being instilled by Socrates through asking such kind of questions. Socrates encouraged people to be inquisitive and at the same time take deep look in their personal lives. Such questions form the basis of what philosophy is all about. Though there might be no clear answer to the question, it does raise more questions on what people consider holy and why. By Socrates posing such a question, it was because pious had some certain characteristics incorporated which made it pious and due to the fact that it was pious, it was loved by the gods, or is it due to the fact that gods do favor some actions which they wish deem pious.
They could have a similar meaning in one way. In both situations gods deem what is pious and on the other hand there would be a question as to whether pious at one point was not dear to gods. First way of answering Socrates’ question is through understanding his statement when he says that the gods were in a discord state and they were at enmity and at odd with each other. If Socrates statement is true, it does not mean that pious is defined by what is hell dear by gods because what is approved by one god, it is disapproved by the other. When the gods are in discord, they cannot agree. This single statement is a proof that Euthyphro’ definition is not right. There are also different particulars that are incorporated by pious in forming the definition. A common characteristic is therefore necessary in identification of a pious action so as to define it.
Through understanding Euthyphro definition error as well as attempting to answer question by Socrates, it is clear that Socrates is making efforts in helping Euthyphro to understand that indeed we are usually the ones that deem what is pious. Significance of Socrates’ statement is to make us understand that we need to first find our own values and morals in order to apply them to our own lives. Failure of us in understanding what pious means, we will end up being judgmental in the way we think. After understanding the true pious meaning, we will become more open minded thus we will effectively apply it in our lives. The statement tends also to prove that intentions of Euthyphro in prosecuting his father were wrong.
If personally I had to answer the question that was posed by Socrates, I would say that the gods loved pious because it was pious because the gods can only embrace piety and consider also what is pious by being important to them but cannot create pious. Such arguments as this one that involves divine authority are an encouragement to the current ethical theories to base on individual’s autonomy other than in God. This is because there is no solution that can be found through the latter. No matter the way one will think about piety, it is something that just exists, whether through doing of God or not. Alternative is that on occasion, God might command an individual to do something that would be regarded as wrong, like being cruel to other people.
If indeed God is inherent morally, logically this is impossible, or cruelty command from God would make it right, but it is unlikely to fail to be worth any consideration, or there would be a breakdown of my concept which is either right or wrong. Logically it is more than impossible for God to command cruelty other than as a faith item as we lack any reason in believing it. Based upon theological reasons, one can support of the fact that God could unbelievably command cruelty, originating largely from the religious texts; from theology all we are aware of about God is that he is good, but it isn’t unreasonable to entirely suggest that he ought to be inherently good. On this reason if we base our understanding on morality, and if at all gods in one occasion were to command cruelty, it will lead to our moral concept being inexorably unintelligible because there would be a change in their basis.
Socrates has shown that Euthyphro has not explained really what pious is, what the gods love and the reason why they love it. It is not so clear whether Euthyphro has an understanding of why anything happens and even how anything works. One can easily notice that the proposal by Euthyphro really does not say what pious is; the exact things that would be loved by the gods and the exact reason for loving it. However he fails to notice this and probably it is the reason why Socrates picks an alternative to show that Euthyphro has failed in explaining the meaning of pious, or show that he has an understanding of pious. According to Socrates, Euthyphro has contradicted himself by saying that pious and what the gods love are exactly the same and at the same time they are different. It is therefore important for him to see that he does not have a grasp of piety’s nature as he thinks. It is clear that according to Socrates, if at all in any way the good divine being requires us do certain things; an understanding on the way of discerning such things and the reason as to why such things can be done in order to do them consistently. If we fail to recognize special quality, there is no hope of being pious and it will require new behavior and law standard.
Works Cited
R.M.Adams. "A Modified Divine Command Theory of Ethical Wrongness." P.Helm. Divine
Commands and Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, n.d. 83-108. Print.
