«Philosophy: Definition of Piety by Euthyphro and Socrates» - Free Essay Paper
When asked to define piety, Euthyphro simply stated it as an accusation of the person engaged in wrong doings by demonstrating his disgrace to his father after he had murdered a servant. Socrates immediately argues this response by informing Euthyphro that definition is flawed. However, that is an illustration of piety. Such definition given by Euthyphro is formed as a principle. For instance, what is the definition of a vehicle? In reality, there are numerous wheeled movable objects that are not vehicles, therefore, according to Socrates, we may inadvertently conclude that bicycles, wheelbarrows, airplanes among others are vehicles as well. “All and only test” aims at obtaining a single actual answer to a question, in other words, there can be only one answer. For instance, what is an all and only principle of a mother? Could be a woman who bears a relation to a child either through giving birth, raising or offering her ovum for fertilization. There are questions that fail to answer the all and only principle. For instance, according to different religions and beliefs, a god is a supreme being who is considered to be a provider.
Most importantly, Socrates refuses to accept the definition that is offered by Euthyphro for piety since he considers it biased in nature despite being favored by one or more gods. After rejecting the first response by Euthyphro, Socrates asks him to give a clear definition of piety. Euthyphro answer that piety refers to what is loved by god thus is pious, while what is not loved by god is impious. Although Socrates was pleased by this answer because Euthyphro seemed to think close enough to him, Socrates still rejected it. According to Socrates, gods love and hate too much so sometimes they disagree among themselves. Socrates considers the second definition as causing contradiction to what gods ought to be. Contradiction contributes to logical incompatibility between two or more ideas and in most cases, prepositions. It is experienced when ideas or prepositions are used together to result into opposite direction of what they intend to conclude. Therefore, it is difficult to tell what is pious because of the disagreement among gods themselves who indeed ought to determine the extent of piousness depending on what is impious. From this, one can see that Socrates is for definition that renders all things religious.
In the fourth definition, Euthyphro defines piety as a sectio of justice that is concerned with the care offered by the gods. At this point, Euthyphro is extremely frustrated and cannot contribute anymore because three previous definitions were rejected. Moreover, Socrates rejects even this one. From this, one can see a clear reveal of dryness in the way Socrates handles Euthyphro’s knowledge as a great man and asks him to teach him knowing well that his intention is not to learn from Euthyphro. This definition serves as the premise of the argument that “is pious loved by gods because it is pious or is it pious because it is loved?” Socrates’ intention is to make Euthyphro to accept the 1st and reject the 2nd of the two options he offers in the initial argument. However, Euthyphro fails to comprehend the question and Socrates wants to repeat the question in a simpler way. We realize that Euthyphro is not even consistent with his previous definition to deny the 2nd option offered by Socrates. This is because (premise of the argument), if religious is to be considered as favored by all gods, then it infers the fact that the virtuous is virtuous. The technicality part of this premise is the reason Euthyphro could realize it.
Want an expert write a paper for you?
The statement can be regarded as valid since it depicts truthfulness. In this case, a valid statement can be regarded as one with a true inference under the bases that all the assumptions being considered are true in nature. In his explanation of Socrates’ idea, Plato indicates that a passive participle can operate as a section of a noun phrase or on itself. As such, since “all humans are mortal” is a passive participle, then it can be used as its noun phrase “Socrates is mortal”, which means that Socrates is human by the fact humans are mortal. The soundness of the statement can be deduced by following Socrates first option of his argument that he offered to Euthyphro. The statement asked a critical question on gods’ love on pious individuals. The statement also addressed the idea that Socrates can be regarded as mortal since he is a human and all humans have been created mortal. In fact, this statement can be taken further to illustrate that everybody who dies has lived at one point of time. That way, everyone dies so all are going to die. Most importantly, what considered being human is regarded as prone to death.
The statement that “All humans are mortal, Socrates is mortal, and therefore Socrates is human” is invalid in natture. In fact, it can be deduced that the validity and soundness of this statement is reverse to the first statement as demonstrated by Plato in Socrates’ second part of his argument - ‘pious is loved by gods because it is pious’. Plato suggests that the second pious does not mean the same as the first pious in the second argument offered by Socrates. Plato used grammatical explanations and argued that inflected passive replaces the active participle, thus changes its meaning. Accordingly, the meaning created by the first human in this case is different from the second meaning of the human. In the same way, the first mortal has a different meaning with the second mortal so the general meaning of the statement will not be valid. In other words, the fact that all humans are mortal and Socrates is mortal does not automatically make Socrates human. That is quite contrary to the statement provided in question 4 that considers that everybody is subjective to death. Going by the fact that Socrates is mortal, it is not a justifiable reason that he is to be considered human.
Hurry up! Limited time offer
Use discount code
The statement is invalid. According to Plato, single relativism approach is never stated and unfailingly used so the moment when a fact is relativized is close to locate it in another object’s world, which will not make sense. Generally, the main argument is that repeating a qualifier will be similar to putting an individual’s world inside of another individual’s life. For instance, ‘for A, k is true for B’, we are putting B’s life inside A’s and when we infer that ‘For B, k is true for A’, we will be putting A’s life inside B’s. The exponent of repeatable qualifiers should enable us to state the two things simultaneously. However, if we say both together, then A’s life will be partly assumed to be part of B’s and similarly, B’s life will be partly assumed to be part of A’s. That is logically impossible because there are no two objects that can be a perfect part of another. Therefore, repeating logical qualifiers should not be considered due to invalidity. With regards to soundness of the statement, if all wines are diesel and all diesel fuels are drinkable, it follows that that special diesel called wine is drinkable. In this case, multiple relativism is applied Since a certain part, say A shares similarity with another part, say B which also shares a similar part with C, then the parts of the three component can represent one another perfectly but only in those parts that share similarity.
Most popular orders