Euthyphro identifies piety or holiness as “what he is doing”(prosecuting a murderer, his father) This is met with rebuttal from Socrates telling Euthyphro that he needs actual definitions not examples so that he can apply them to other occurrences in life.
Formulation 2:
Piety is described as, what is dear to the gods and impiety as what is not dear to them Socrates meets this formulation with the fact that this can’t be true because the gods are constantly fighting. Noting that what one god loves, is hated by another. He references the fact that the gods fight similarly to Euthyphro and his family. He also goes into the fact that it might be hard to determine what the gods like and dislike as humans.
Formulation 3:
Piety is what all of the gods love, while impiety is what they all hate Socrates tries to juxtapose why something is pious. He brings up the question of if something being pious because it is loved by the gods or if it is loved by the gods because it is pieous. Raising the question of why do the gods love piety, not because they just love it but they must love it for some reason.
Formulation 4:
Peity is apart of justice which attends to the gods. Which Socrates critics by saying this is unclear because one attending to the gods seems impossible or improbable, because what is it that we are giving them or improving for them? Formulation 5: Euthyphro comes back with a similar yet more specific definition stating that we serve and minister to the gods through justice and piety Socrates says again that this isn't sensible because we can not improve the gods way of life Overall, Socrates doesn’t seem to subscribe to any of Euthyphro's definitions of piety, leading one to believe that by adding the gods into the equation the definition of piety is skewed or unobtainable.
Apology Response
Plato’s “Apology” provides a very interesting look into the views of that time. Socrates, who was and still is revered as an incredibly wise man, is put on trial for the heinous crimes associated with being a free-thinker. He was charged by two sets of accusers: the older accusers, and the new accusers. Socrates is charged with corrupting the youth, and impiety; both charges are absolutely ridiculous. Socrates was a man who was well aware of his wisdom, and used it to challenge the wisdom of others. It was those very challenges that had earned the earned his admiration from the youth, along with envy from those he accused. The reasoning behind the charge of impiety is understandable from the eyes of the jury. It is brought to the attention of the jury that Socrates did not in fact believe in the gods recognized by the state, but believed in other gods. These two charges are open for interpretation and leave the reader to make their own convictions. Personally, I do not think that these were fair charges. My main reason for disagreeing is that both of these once charges are perfectly legal and essentially God-given rights in this county. As corrupt as this America is, if even our forefathers recognized the freedom of speech and religion as a necessity, then it has to be such. In essence, Socrates was accused of exercising the very rights that are given to everyone from infants to the insane. Furthermore, I do not believe that Socrates was the only individual who held these ideals. Instead, I believe that Socrates was made a target. Whether it be from jealousy or another reason, I believe that he was convicted because the people he may have offended could have been quite influential. His death was the only punishment seen fit, which is why the jury rejected his original proposal of a fine. Nonetheless, it is my belief that Socrates’s conviction was unfair due to today's rights.
Crito Response
This text proves that Socrates was not only willing to live by his ideologies, but die by them as well. In essence, Socrates’s friend Crito visits him in jail in an attempt to convince him to escape. Socrates, unmoved by Crito’s pleas, provides several reasons as to why escaping will in a way be worse than death. Socrates believed that to escape would be unjust. Reason being that all of the laws are one entity, and to break one by escaping would be to break them all. We are bound to the laws like a child is bound to the parent, and to break the law is like striking a parent. Socrates also believed that this would be especially harmful in his case because of his wisdom and connection with Athena. Furthermore, Socrates had evaluated the long term results of his hypothetical escape and understood that escaping was not worth it. If successful, Socrates would have turned his back on the society he was once a part of, and exposes himself to the judgement of others forever. Even after death, he would be heavily judged for turning his back on Athens. Crito begged Socrates to think about the public image of his friends, even his children. Socrates argued that the opinion of the public does not matter in the slightest and if Crito can convince him that escaping would be just, he would go. Crito could not and Socrates faced his death. After reading and understanding Socrates’ defense, I am not entirely sure that I would escape. In this case I would not have the capacity to think forward to life after death. Quite frankly, I don’t think most do. I, along with many others live in the moment and the now with little regard for decades down the line. Socrates however, did. I have never seen the laws as an entity and disagree to some degree. I do not believe that distributing weed to feed my family is as unjust as serial murder, and I don’t think Socrates did either. However, that is what’s implied. Despite this, I think that Socrates’ perspective of the laws is a pious one and that he made the right decision. Though if I were placed in a similar position I believe I would have done the same thing.