Socrates Vs Kant

According to Kant, to be enlightened is to both be free of self-incurred tutelage and have the freedom to express oneself without penalty. Tutelage occurs because of laziness, cowardice, complacency, and blind obedience (Kant). When these tutelages are done away with, and there is freedom of expression, then people can become enlightened (Kant). In Euthyphro, Socrates is demonstrating that he is enlightened because he doesn’t do any of the things that would create self-incurred tutelage, he is expressing himself freely, and he is thinking for himself as he reasons with Euthyphro.
One way of incurring tutelage on oneself is laziness. It is simply an easier way of life to let other people do your thinking for you (Kant)! As Kant puts it, “I need not think, if I can only pay - others will easily undertake the irksome work for me” (Kant, 1). Socrates does the opposite of this when he is reasoning with Euthyphro about what it means to be pious instead of lazily accepting whatever Euthyphro says. Socrates is doing his own thinking, and not letting someone else think for him. …show more content…
Once someone allows others to do his or her thinking, those doing the thinking will often exaggerate the dangers of learning to think independently into a terrifying prospect that should be avoided at all costs (Kant). Kant relates it to dumb domestic cattle who “will not take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they are tethered” (Kant, 1). These “cattle” are people who rely on others to think for them, and are encouraged to fear thinking for themselves. Kant goes on to point out that one will fall while learning to walk, and the danger of learning to think is not nearly as great as some say it is. Socrates demonstrates he is not cowardly when he is willing to express himself freely, even if doing so can get him into trouble in the form of being charged with