Euthyphro And Socrates Analysis
The conversation between Socrates and Euthyphro takes place at the marketplace. Euthyphro is on his way to charge his father for murder, and Socrates is going to his own trial, because he was accused of corrupting the minds of the youth. Before going into his trial, Socrates asks Euthyphro, who claims to be a spiritually enlightened prophet, what exactly makes something of piety or impiety. He asks this, because he wants to be seen as Euthyphro’s student, and so that he can use Euthyphro’s teachings in order to understand the difference between godliness and ungodliness, so that he can represent himself in court. As Euthyphro attempts to define it in clear and general terms, Socrates brings up different flaws and perspectives on his explanations that cause him to delve into it. As they continue to discuss it, Socrates’ questions cause Euthyphro to come full circle back to his first explanation of it, and they never come to a clear conclusion.
…show more content…
If we accept the first horn, then God would not be an omnipotent being, because it wouldn’t have been in from his power that anything is called good. If we accept the second horn, an issue arises regarding morality. If God came out and said that we could torture people for fun, would it feel moral to us? The second horn isn’t possible, because morality would become obligatory. Because of this dilemma, philosophers have tried to create a secular ethic in order to avoid it. But, according to Kai Nielsen, “Religious morality… may have its difficulties, but secular morality, religious apologists argue, has still greater difficulties.” He then explains that without some great consequence, or without any bigger purpose for living morally, then there would be no reason to live morally, or to even define what morality consists
If we accept the first horn, then God would not be an omnipotent being, because it wouldn’t have been in from his power that anything is called good. If we accept the second horn, an issue arises regarding morality. If God came out and said that we could torture people for fun, would it feel moral to us? The second horn isn’t possible, because morality would become obligatory. Because of this dilemma, philosophers have tried to create a secular ethic in order to avoid it. But, according to Kai Nielsen, “Religious morality… may have its difficulties, but secular morality, religious apologists argue, has still greater difficulties.” He then explains that without some great consequence, or without any bigger purpose for living morally, then there would be no reason to live morally, or to even define what morality consists