student :: essays research papers

Euthyphro Good or bad, right or wrong, truth or lie, piety or impiety, just or unjust, honorable or dishonorable; these controversies are and always have been problematic for human beings. It is not as easy as it seems to draw a line between those antonyms, partly because people have cultural differences, dissimilar backgrounds, educational levels, values, believes, and views on religion, as in the case with Socrates and Euthyphro. Following the conversation of Socrates and Euthyphro, it is obvious that Socrates is a philosopher who relies on his philosophic point of view and believes that it is not normal to pursue your own father for murder, if he killed a non-relative. But vice versa, it is alright to press charges against your father, if the victim is a family member. As seen from Socrates’s proposition: â€Å"I suppose that the man whom your father murdered was one of your relative -- clearly he was; for if he had been a stranger you would never have thought of prosecuting him†. He is not only surprised about Euthyphro’s desire to bring his own father to court, but is also amazed that religion beliefs might be stronger then the relationship between father and son. On the contrary, Euthypro observes this case from a different point of view. For him it doesn’t matter, who is the murderer: â€Å"The real question is whether the murdered man has been justly slain. If justly, then y our duty is to let the matter alone; but if unjustly, then even if the murderer lives under the same table, proceed against him†. One can then ask: â€Å"What are the criteria for recognition of whether the murdered man has been justly or unjustly slain?† Socrates was in court awaiting trial on charges of impiety. The philosopher sarcastically agrees to be Euthyphro’s disciple, when Euthyphro suggest that he has deep knowledge of religion and of things pious and impious. It was important for Socrates to understand the difference between these terms, as he had to appear in court with justification of his actions (rash imagination and innovations in religion). Along their debate, Socrates is little-by-little persuading Euthyphro that the distinction between just and unjust, piety and impiety, honorable and dishonorable is very ambiguous and depends on how it is viewed and by whom it is viewed. Socrates points out that things and actions are not necessarily pious and holy when loved by Gods, because even Gods were frequently involved in immoral acts and very often even quarreled with each other.