"Socrates: Then you’ve not answered my question, Euthyphro. I wasn’t asking what turns out to be equally holy and unholy- whatever is divinely approved is also divinely disapproved, apparently. Consequently, my dear Euthyphro, it would be no surprise if, in trying to punish your father as you do now, you did something approved by Zeus and offensive to Kronos...." (Tarrant & Tredennick 17-18)
Socrates and Euthyphro converse on the following question: What makes something holy or unholy? As Socrates asks Euthyphro several questions, his opinion about his views on what is holy or unholy keep changing. One of the conclusions drawn was that the things that are considered holy are things that are approved by the Gods. However, things disapproved by the gods are unholy. In a way this argument can be legit, but in Euthyphro’s situation, it cannot be proven. According to the quote above, the fact that Euthyphro is prosecuting his own father is unholy to society. However, some gods may view this as just, while other gods may view his actions unholy. Therefore, I don’t see how something can be considered holy when even the gods disagree on the situation. There are certain benefits that gods have that humans don’t have. A god can do something unholy and say it’s holy.
The preceding information raises the following question: If the gods have no part in deciding what is holy or unholy, then is it the people and the way they think? In the text, Socrates mentions the power of thinking and how some people may interpret something unholy while others interpret it as holy. Going back to Euthyphro’s situation, it is considered holy and just to prosecute someone who did wrong, especially for killing someone. However, the fact that the person he is prosecuting is his father makes all the difference. Why is it that this is unholy? His father killed someone and therefore justice should be served. Perhaps decisions by the gods do not influence what is holy, instead it is the people and the way they accept things. The fact that the people feel that Euthyphro prosecuting his father is wrong derived from somewhere. People view this as wrong because they were told it was wrong for many years. It’s like being taught when you’re a little kid about how not to steal because it’s wrong, but who says it is? People like Socrates who tests these things are seen as people who disrupt society because things are being challenged. It causes chaos to society and things are no longer because they are, instead there needs to be evidence to back it up.
This leads me to my last and final thought: What determines what is holy or unholy and what are the premises behind the conclusion?
Friday, September 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Throughout the course of the chapter, Euthyphro and Socrates argue over the question of what determines what is holy and unholy. Euthyphro claims that prosecuting his father holy, regardless that it's his father, because he is prosecuting a criminal. Socrates constantly questions Euthyphro's knowledge on how to decide what is holy and what isn't.
In the end, I believe that people determine what is holy and what is unholy, but they use their religious morals to decide between the two if they are a believer. Euthyphro believed that all gods agree that whoever kills someone unjustly should pay the price, which is why he prosecuted his father. The same goes for any situation today. I, as a Catholic, know that it is wrong to kill an individual, and it is also against the morals that I am to uphold as a Catholic. I understand that the Bible is holy and to be respected. The same concept can be applied to the Torah; I am not Jewish, nor a follower of the Jewish religion, but I know through my understanding of religion and culture that it is a holy book.
So to answer your question, people, with aid from their morals, determine what is holy or unholy.
Sean I agree with you, I see how religious backgrounds, values, and teachings affect the way a person determines whether something is holy or unholy. As I read the chapter, I realized that Euthyphro agreed to everything Socrates said, each opiion being different. To Euthyphro, everything Socrates said was correct although everything he stated was different from the others. Either using religion to determine what is holy or unholy, or even personal values, each is approached in a different way which makes something holy for many different reasons. Thank you for your comment.
After reading this chapter I thought about how this situation connects to today's society. These are some things I found interesting. I also feel that the definition of holiness pertains to morals and personal beliefs. I did notice however, how Socrates’ ways of associating justice and religion come in to play in today’s government. It is noticeable how our government tries not to mix religion with government decisions. But this is when justice comes into play. It makes me question what makes an action “just”? Socrates is right…. What do the gods or does god gain from having servants…How do we know that what we are doing is holy? Past generations have passed down beliefs that are acceptable but where did the ability to reason come from? How do we know that justice is just in religion? This chapter points out how determining what justice is, is different for everyone. Justice is a matter of perception. In the story, Euthyphro says that his family members disagree with his action of giving his father away. Here Euthyphro thinks that he is doing what the gods think is right although the family members are being selfish by wanting to cover up Euthyphro’s father’s wrong doing.
This brings me back to the same point as Socrates… is what is just holy? I think not… justice is different for all people.
I also point this out: Is religion a way to brainwash or control society? I think yes…. Clearly religion and the thought of gods influenced Euthyphro’s actions. Also, how do we know that the story of the gods is true?
Vonmarie, I agree with what you are saying. You elaborated more on what I was trying to say on how beliefs were passed down for many generations. How do we basically determine whether or not these teachings are true? Euthyphro's family obviously believe his actions are wrong because they've been taught that way. However, Euthyphro is breaking the chain of beliefs that have been passed down for generations. He is thinking outside of religion and breaking the relationship between religion and law, which clearly had no relationship in the first place.
In regards to the previous comment, I agree with the statements concerning the fact that beliefs are passed down from one generation to the next; the "truths" and "common sense"-based beliefs that a society may (or may not) hold are ones that have been created and molded to fit that particular society at a specific place in time, in that particular generation. I would not say that Euthyphro is necessarily thinking "outside the box" so much that he is looking at a different section within the same box. When reading this dialogue, I feel that one's degree of a sense of bond toward their own family would be the deciding factor of whether or not they would see justice as being served if Euthyphro prosecuted his father; in this case, they would be placing their family over the law if believing that he should withdraw his prosecution claim.
In response to Sean's comment, I am going to have to disagree with you that people can just determine what is holy from what is not. It is generally vague to determine what constitutes something that is holy from what is not. I believe the main point of the argument between Socrates and Euthypro was that Socrates was trying to prove to Euthypro that what he thinks he knows is false. It seems in such a way that Euthyphro was trying to dissuade Socrates from the argument and Socrates persistently attacked Euthyprhro's argument. It can also be noted that Socrates is using Euthyprhro to show him that he is not as wise as once perceived. Again in this chapter it also showed towards the end an almost a resentment towards Euthyphro.
I also believe that these sort of beliefs are passed down through generations. Children learn that stealing is wrong because they're parents teach them that, and they're parents taught them the same thing, etc. Although its generally pretty easy to know what is wrong, its harder to know exactly what is right. I think that the idea that Euthyphro is dealing with is in this gray area, because its not as explicitly wrong as say stealing is, but its also not thought of as a good thing to do. when you're stuck in a gray area like this, who is supposed to tell you whats right and wrong? i think that this is a case when most people turn to religion to seek the answers of whats right and wrong. so in this case, the gods definitely decide what is holy and unholy.
Some questions:
1) Why can't Euthyphro's position be proven?
2) How does the quotation show that society thinks his action is unholy?
3) So you think that Euthyphro's definition, that the god's accord on what is holy, is sufficient?
4) What does the power of a god have to do with what is holy or unholy?
5) Why does the fact that Euthyphro is prosecuting his father affect his claim that prosecuting wrongful killing is holy?
6) Doesn't "society" agree that stealing is wrong? THis seems like a misleading example. Perhaps a better example might be something that is unsettled, such as, should abortion be protected by law (everyone will agree that it should be avoided).
A good final question, although I'd like some answers. Philosophy's about the answers.
Post a Comment