Euthyphro Vs Socrates

Words: 666
Pages: 3

The primary philosophical issue about which Socrates and Euthyphro are in disagreement was the nature of the holy or the nature of the piety. Socrates asks “What sort of thing would you say that the pious and the impious are, whether in murder or in other matters? Isn’t the holy itself the same as itself in every action?” (p7, 5c11- 5d2). Socrates was seeking essential knowledge, seeking to know the inner nature of what is holy, not what it is like, not someone else’s opinion about it, but what is in it that makes it holy or unholy. Euthyphro who poses to be pious and all knowledgeable about religion is seeking particular knowledge. In his response to the question asked by Socrates, Euthyphro was unable to provide concrete answers about the nature of the holy, instead he gave examples of the holy and unholy is. He makes the nature of the holy dependent upon whether the gods like it or not. He used the prosecution of his father for murder as being the holy thing to do and not prosecuting his father is unholy Euthyphro says “I’d say that the holy is just what I’m …show more content…
That is how he justifies his action of prosecuting his father as the holy thing to do, because religiously if you commit murder regardless of who you are, you are to be prosecuted and brought to justice. Socrates on the other hand objected by arguing that; is it not also unholy to prosecute your own father, so how can one action be holy and unholy as the same time. This is the first logical contradiction or mistakes with Euthyphro’s argument. Socrates says “so by this argument, Euthyphro, the sane things would be both holy and unholy” (p9, 8a10-11). Socrates made mention of how much the gods aquarelle and have their differences, therefore how can holy be what is loved by the gods, when the gods themselves don’t love the same