When faced with any
decision, there is often an opportunity to choose right and wrong. However, sometimes the choice of right and
wrong is blurred by one’s past actions and beliefs, obscuring the consistent
stream of decisions made up until a recent choice. Those who choose to remain consistent without
any regard to the present situation affected by a choice may have given up a
relationship to humanity and society.
This is the case with Euthyphro, Socrates, and Descartes. In Plato’s work, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Euthyphro chooses to keep his
principles and sacrifice his father’s life, just as Socrates would have done if
he was in that position. This appears to
be true because Socrates sacrificed his life for his principles and believed
death was not a bad thing. Descartes’
commitments show that he would not have sided with Socrates in this situation
because of his idea of indubitability in his work Meditations of first Philosophy.
Socrates sacrificed his life for his principles, just as Euthyphro
sacrificed his father’s life for his principles, because they both were
consistent in their decisions and passively allowed death to happen. In Plato’s work The Trial and Death of Socrates Euthyphro said, “I say that the
pious is to do what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer…whether the
wrongdoer is your father or your mother or anyone else; not to prosecute is
impious” (Plato 6). This statement is an
admittance of consistency, or a hope of future consistency, in Euthyphro’s
belief in what is pious or impious.
There is no evidence in this statement to support the past actions of
Euthyphro’s decision making, but it is an affirmation that from that point on,
he will consistently decide to act on what he feels is impious. The reader never finds out if Euthyphro went
through with the trial and definitely had his father killed, but the assumption
that this is what happened is a strong one from this statement. Socrates showed his curiosity in Euthyphro’s
idea of consistency when he said, “Come, try to show me a clear sign that all
the gods definitely believe this action to be right” (Plato 10). Socrates is looking for a consistency of what
is pious or impious, and that Euthyphro’s decision to have his father killed is
the right thing to do in the eyes of the gods.
This is nearly impossible to prove, as Socrates demonstrated when he
talked circles around Euthyphro. This
quest for consistency leads both of these men to a standoff with death. Socrates died over the consistency of things
being inconsistent, and Euthyphro killed over the consistency of his poor
example of piety. However, in this
situation Socrates would have done the same thing Euthyphro did for the sake of
consistency.
The rigidity of this situation is extremely
pressing. The negotiations that took
place to save the lives of Socrates and Euthyphro’s father were passive. The reader never hears about the negotiation
Euthyphro had with his father over his prosecution, but does hear the negotiation
between Socrates and his prosecutors.
Socrates said, “Do you think I would have survived all these years if I
were engaged in public affairs and, acting as a good man must, came to the help
of justice and considered this the most important thing? Far from it, men of Athens, nor would any
other man” (Plato 35). Socrates
essentially admitted to hiding away for years to save his life because of what
he believed in. One cannot help thinking
there is a difference in fighting for what one believes in and dying for what
one believes in. If Socrates were
fighting for his beliefs, he would have been an actively aggressive presence
within the leadership of Athens. Yet it
took Athens his whole lifespan to allow Socrates to die for his beliefs. Socrates seems to be patiently waiting to die
over something in which he never even put up a fight. It is one thing to say words in one’s
defense, but it is another to act in one’s defense. Euthyphro puts his father in a similar
situation. Euthyphro said, “I think,
Socrates, that on this subject no gods would differ from one another, that
whoever has killed anyone unjustly should pay the penalty” (Plato 9). This statement is complex in that Euthyphro
is not a god, therefore has no jurisdiction to decide whether his father should
be killed or not. The only thing he can
do is think about what the gods might believe to be pious and act in that
way. Euthyphro does not really have the
right to sacrifice another man’s life over what he believes. Socrates sacrifices his own life, which is
his to decide with what he wants to do, but Euthyphro takes another man’s life,
essentially making him a murderer. The
irony in this scene is that Euthyphro is killing someone for killing.
Socrates would have done the same thing because both
these men believe in the power of principle.
Socrates said, “Some assert that they wrong one another, while others
deny it, but no one among gods or men ventures to say that the wrongdoer must
not be punished” (Plato 10). Socrates meant
that all beings believe wrongdoers must be punished for their actions. It is not a question of who wronged who, but
that someone must pay for a misdeed. This
conclusion is almost juvenile in its assumption because it is declaring
punishment a necessity. Instead of a
corrective approach, punishment is the approach. This can cause major issues within families,
such as in Euthyphro’s case, because he killed his own father, his mother’s
husband, and many other familial relationships.
People are more than just a single entity, and are always connected in
webs of relationships and feelings. By
cutting the ties to his father, Euthyphro created a broken home and isolated
himself. Socrates loved the idea of
controversy to learn and relate ideas, so his actions would have mirrored
Euthyphro’s. Socrates would have
sacrificed his father’s life for his principles like Euthyphro and also
believed that death was not a bad thing.
In a general and primal sense, death is a situation that
humans try to avoid. However, Socrates
believed that death was not a bad thing.
Socrates said, “Let us reflect in this way, too, that there is good hope
that death is a blessing…If it is complete lack of perception, like a dreamless
sleep, then death would be a great advantage” (Plato 41). Socrates is curious to see what lies beyond
the grave. Thinking in this mindset, the
idea of sending relatives to death is similar to sending them to bed. Therefore, Euthyphro prosecuting his father
is not as horrific to Socrates as it is to the reader. Still, death is not a science experiment to
be fooled with because once a decision is made, it cannot be retracted. If Socrates were in the same position as
Euthyphro with his father’s life on the line, Socrates would have him killed based
on his principles as well as the idea that he is not really going to be killed,
just moved on to another place. Yet,
think if entire populations of people held this idea. People would commit mass suicide or mass
murder in the attempt to make it to the next level. It is a unique idea generated by a unique
man. That is why Socrates would have
acted in the same way Euthyphro did, out of his unconventional idea that death
is not so bad. Socrates would have done
the same thing as Euthyphro, while Descartes would not have sided with Socrates
because of his idea of indubitability.
Given Descartes commitments, he would not have sided with
Socrates because his idea of indubitability in his work Meditations on First Philosophy.
Without a doubt, Descartes would have wanted to know that Socrates was
making the most truthful and accurate decision.
Descartes wrote, “But reason now persuades me that I should withhold my
assent no less carefully from opinions that are not completely certain and
indubitable than I would from those that are patently false” (Descartes
13). Descartes was not even sure if he
was living in a dream or not, so to place another man’s life in his hands would
require a high standard of evidence and complete certainty for Descartes to
act. He would want to know for certain
his actions were correct, but oftentimes that is an impossible task. That is why the criminal court systems in the
United States of America prosecute people to a level of beyond reasonable doubt,
which is admittance that nothing can be one hundred percent accurate. Descartes wrote, “However, I have noticed
that the senses are sometimes deceptive; and it is a mark of prudence never to
place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once” (Descartes
14). Descartes was talking about how
there is no way to prove that a person is not living in a dream, and that human
senses can be misleading. This could
also be related to authority figures.
Authority figures that deceive people once are never to be trusted
again. Therefore, by Socrates falling
into the role of the victim by the authority figures of Athens, there is no way
Descartes would have agreed with what Socrates and Euthyphro were doing because
of the idea that authority figures cannot be trusted.
However, Descartes believed in a god. Descartes wrote, “I understand by the name
“God” a certain substance that is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent
and supremely powerful, and that created me along with everything else that
exists – if anything else exists” (Descartes 30). He wrote of the infinite, and thought of the
infinite after death. Once again, to
prove such a concept is nearly impossible, but since the idea was generated by
a human, it is enough evidence to contemplate its existence. The belief of the afterlife by Socrates and
Descartes may be similar, but the way in which one gets to the afterlife would
be disputed by the two men. Descartes
would not have sided with Socrates and Euthyphro because of the idea of
indubitabilty.
In life, decisions will always present themselves,
perhaps even in ways that are too difficult to understand. In Plato’s work, The Trial and Death of Socrates, Euthyphro chooses to keep his
principles and sacrifice his father’s life, just as Socrates would have done if
he was in that position. Descartes’
commitments show that he would not have sided with Socrates in this situation
because of his idea of indubitability in his work Meditations of first Philosophy.
Sometimes when one is faced with a decision, the only thing to do is go
with one’s gut. As humans, there is not
much a person can do to control the universe.
It is always best to do what one feels is the right thing to do, because
it is all we can do.
Descartes,
Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. Donald A. Cress. 3rd ed. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett,
1993. Print.
Plato. The
Trial and Death of Socrates. Trans. G. M.
Grube. Ed. John M. Cooper. 3rd ed. Indianapolis/Cambridge:
Hackett, 2000. Print.
Image
No comments:
Post a Comment