![]() On the second alternative in each case, actions become right (or wrong) solely because of the authority's approval (or disapproval) "Does the College forbid this activity because it is wrong, or is it wrong because the College forbids it?") "Do my parents approve of this action because it is right, or is it right because my parents approve of it?" or (Consider, for example, parallel questions with a similar structure: In fact, this dilemma proposes a significant difficulty at the heart of any effort to define morality by reference to an external authority. If, on the other hand, the gods love right actions only because they are already right, then there must be some non-divine source of values, which we might come to know independently of their love. If right actions are pious only because the gods love them, then moral rightness is entirely arbitrary, depending only on the whims of the gods. Neither alternative can do the work for which Euthyphro intends his definition of piety. "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" More significantly, Socrates generates a formalĭilemma from a (deceptively) simple question: ![]() (Notice that this problem arises only in a polytheistic culture.) Socrates lets Euthypro off the hook on this one by aggreeingonly for purposes of continuing the discussionthat the gods may be supposed to agree perfectly with each other. Specifically, Socrates systematically refutes Euthyphro's suggestion that what makes right actions right is that the gods love (or approve of) them.įirst, there is the obvious problem that, since questions of right and wrong often generate interminable disputes, the gods are likely to disagree among themselves about moral matters no less often than we do, making some actions both right and wrong. GOOG LOVE IS ON THE WAY FULLThe demand here is for something more than merely a list of which actions are, in fact, pious instead, Euthyphro is supposed to provide a generalĭefinition that captures the very essence of what piety is.īut every answer he offers is subjected to the full force of Socrates's critical thinking, until nothing certain remains. ( Euthyphro), for example, Socrates engaged in a sharply critical conversation with an over-confident young man.įinding Euthyphro perfectly certain of his own ethical rectitude even in the morally ambiguous situation of prosecuting his own father in court, Socrates asks him to define what "piety" Nevertheless, it is usually assumed that at least the early dialogues of Plato provide a (fairly) accurate representation of Socrates himself. ![]() The trouble is that Plato was himself a philosopher who often injected his own theories into the dialogues he presented to the world as discussions between Socrates and other famous figures of the day. Plato) for any detailed knowledge of his methods and results. Thus, his willingness to call everything into question and his determination to accept nothing less than an adequate account of the nature of things make him the first clear exponent of critical philosophy.Īlthough he was well known during his own time for his conversational skills and public teaching, Socrates wrote nothing, so we are dependent upon his students (especially Xenophon and ![]() The Sophists to a new purpose, the pursuit of truth. Since he sought genuine knowledge rather than mere victory over an opponent, Socrates employed the same logical tricks developed by The most interesting and influential thinker in theįifth century was Socrates, whose dedication to careful reasoning transformed the entire enterprise. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |