Moral Problems Raised by the Immoralists - Essay Example

Plato on the moral problems raised by the immoralists Introduction The moral theory of Plato is different in the case whereby his believe is based on nature of the individual which tends to portray the nature of the social and political state. To Plato, morality is an efficiency harmony of the whole being which is achieved the other parts are used effectively. He argues that, evil is nothing more than the parts of man or the parts of state that are out of balance. He further observes that, might does not make it right since justice is not just strength and power but he alludes that it is harmonious strength desires, thus justice is never the right of the strong ones, rather the effective synchronization of the whole. In this argumentative essay, I will focus on finding out whether Plato provide adequate solution to the moral problems raised by immoralists and whether he provides good reasons to suggest that the good life is the best life (Melchert, 45) Plato’s dialogue referred to as Euthyphro brings out a discussion that occurred between Socrates and his counterpart, Euthyphro. The dialogue concerns the meaning of piety, as brought out by Socrates asking the meaning of piety, as well as impiety. He tries to clearly find out this virtue which he mostly regards as a manner of living that brings satisfaction to one’s duty both to gods and to humanity, this he affirms by saying “that which is considered holy by God is piety” This is of concern with respect to the fate of Socrates, who as seen from the dialogue has been accused of impiety and is thus is almost to be tried before the Athenian court in order to establish is guilt or innocence of the crime accused to him. His consistent argument is based on the opinion that the Athenian societies generally did not comprehend the real nature of either devotion or wickedness (Melchert, 18). This is observed when Socrates asks Euthyphro to reply to the question “What is piety?” He has an aim in doing this, for Euthyphro, a sophist, claims to be wise concerning such issues, while in the case of Socrates is making no such claim for himself but professes to just be ignorant. Socrates tries to find out how wise Euthyphro, and if not to the given standard, he will expose the shallowness of his claim. The statement of Socrates saying, “In cannot assent to your superior wisdom”. Euthyphro is seen to have the fame of being a wise individual, a mystic and a fortuneteller. Being a teacher, he provides instructions on moral and political matters, as Socrates states, “I have become your disciple. You Melitus, as I shall say to him, acknowledge Euthyphro to be a great theologian, and sound in his opinions”, (Plato’s republic, 34). Therefore as a teacher, he provides instructions on moral and political matters, and also providing solutions to practical everyday problems. Socrates and Euthyphro are engaged in issues of legal nature as they debate on how the judgment which resulted in the death should be carried out. In this case, it brings out the concern whereby is one supposed to stand against his own father and put charges to him? While Euthyphro is the accuser in an impending trial of murder, the accused being his father. This surprises Socrates that he can go to the extent of bringing charge to his own father. On the other hand, Socrates is facing impiety accusation charges in court. In this case, the defendant is said to have bound the suspect and thrown him into a ditch. In the meantime, messengers were sent to Athens to find out from the interpreters of religion asking what should be done to him. By the time they do return, the criminal had died. In this case, the major concern is, did he have to throw him in the hole? This displays injustice to the victim whom he is just a suspect and therefore is not supposed to be subjected to search torture when even his case has not been determined in order to ascertain whether he actually committed the crime (Melchert, 15) Moreover, the other concern is, was there any need to go call interpreters to come and decide on the case when in the actual sense they were not present when the crime was being committed? This nullifies their judgment since from an objective point of view, they cannot be in a position to provide concrete evidence on what transpired, hence the decision they are going to make can victimize the innocent victim, since due to the influence Euthyphro’s father possesses. Thus this will result to unfair trial to the victims. But the fact that Euthyphro is willing to perform his duty in the matter although it implies taking action against a family member impresses Socrates. Socrates on the other hand addresses the issue of piety. He anxiously follows it since this directly affects him in relation to the idea that Meletus has suspected him of the impiety crime. This is identified by the question he addresses Euthyphro, “What is piety?” Whereby he responds that, piety involves acting the way he did in charging against one who has gone astray, even though the person turns out to be his own father. Despite accepting that Euthyphro is right in not letting personal relationships to stand in the way of performing his duty, He is not satisfied to the answer that has been given is question. From is argument point of view, he stands to the opinion that, an example of the positivity of piety is not correspondent to a designation of that good virtue (Melchert, 81) Euthyphro, in his case has given one example, and despite having defended his account by stating that, sure of the Greek gods have behaved in a related manner as he has. This is in contrast to Socrates, who maintains that a correct meaning of piety must be satisfactory to include all occurrences of that virtue. Thus for that reason, considered that Euthyphro’s statement has not been adequate for this purpose. Socrates thus argues that, although Euthyphro has brought an illegal charge against his own dad, he must be aware of the nature of impiety, or he would thus be unable to make a ruling that his father was guilty of it. Therefore he further urges to be provided a satisfactory answer to his question, so that if provided, he will be in a position to know whether the charge that Meletus is placing against him is ascertained (Melchert 10) Euthyphro further claims that, Piety is what is cherished by the gods while impiety is that which is not of high value to them. This to Socrates, turns out to be more satisfactory. Thus Euthyphros point of view is that, piety is that which is fair to all of the gods. He is certain that they all come into conclusion that murder is wrong. On the other hand, Socrates considers that, the circumstances under which killing takes place makes the difference in relation to the moral quality of the act. The motive resulting to the action also does brings out the moral quality of the act. In a different perspective, Socrates asks, is not that which is pious necessarily just? In this context, he wants to realize whether piety is also part of justice (Melchert, 67) Conclusion Socrates final statement illustrates that he does not have an answer to his question, as he is surprised that his companion could leave him in despair. This reveals that the dialogue ends without Socrates having known what piety is. It closes final answer of the question hence we do not have a vibrant defense for the decision made by Euthyphro in relation to his father’s case. This is for the rationale that the precise nature of the virtue has not been clearly stated. Thus from the dialogue, it is evident that any answer given is being questioned, thus Plato does not does not provide adequate solutions to the moral problems raised by immoralists. Work Cited Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation (6th Edition). Oxford. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Read More