Throughout Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro discuss the nature of piety. Socrates asks Euthyphro to explain what the pious and the impious are (5d) and inquires about the form or characteristics of piety (6e). In response, Euthyphro states that “what’s loved by the gods is pious, and what’s not loved by the gods is impious” (7a). Socrates and Euthyphro agree that “the gods quarrel and differ from one another, and that there’s mutual hostility among them” (7b). Following this agreement, Socrates argues that, because the gods quarrel and disagree regarding actions, the same actions would end up being both pious and impious because the gods love and hate different things. Throughout this paper, I will argue that Euthyphro could save his account
…show more content…
While the gods do differ in their accounts of just and unjust, it does not follow that they love and hate different things. Socrates uses the manner in which men argue about justice and injustice as an example (8c), so by that same standard we will use men as an example to account for this argument. Our sense of just and unjust is never entirely removed from a sense of the way actions might benefit or harm us. Euthyphro may continue to accept that the gods quarrel and therefore disagree, however, he might also argue that the gods disagree regarding just and unjust because they are considering their own benefits on a case by case basis. Similarly, he might point out that this is not the case when they consider actions concerning men. Often men’s sense of just and unjust stems from a sentiment of wrongdoing. If your neighbor steals your computer, is found guilty of this wrongdoing, and is not punished, this will result in a sense of injustice that stems from your own personal bias. You love your computer, feel that you were wronged, and hope to see justice served by your neighbor being punished for stealing it. For the sake of this argument, let us say that you and your neighbor are gods, and you both love your computer. Your neighbor might make the claim that they stole your computer for a reason that they deem just, you might disagree, and the two of you might quarrel—but this doesn’t mean that you do not both love your
While the gods do differ in their accounts of just and unjust, it does not follow that they love and hate different things. Socrates uses the manner in which men argue about justice and injustice as an example (8c), so by that same standard we will use men as an example to account for this argument. Our sense of just and unjust is never entirely removed from a sense of the way actions might benefit or harm us. Euthyphro may continue to accept that the gods quarrel and therefore disagree, however, he might also argue that the gods disagree regarding just and unjust because they are considering their own benefits on a case by case basis. Similarly, he might point out that this is not the case when they consider actions concerning men. Often men’s sense of just and unjust stems from a sentiment of wrongdoing. If your neighbor steals your computer, is found guilty of this wrongdoing, and is not punished, this will result in a sense of injustice that stems from your own personal bias. You love your computer, feel that you were wronged, and hope to see justice served by your neighbor being punished for stealing it. For the sake of this argument, let us say that you and your neighbor are gods, and you both love your computer. Your neighbor might make the claim that they stole your computer for a reason that they deem just, you might disagree, and the two of you might quarrel—but this doesn’t mean that you do not both love your