
Socrates to Euthyphro: three strikes and you are out - Petiver
http://www.90cubedrule.com/socrates-to-euthyphro-three-strikes-and-you-are-out/
======
Jun8
Here's the interesting thing: to many people following a monotheistic
religion, Euthhypro's second definition of piety (the post labels this as the
First Attempt), which Socrates dismisses so easily, is the answer, i.e. piety
(being devout) is _by definition_ following the rules given in the Old/New
Testament or the Quran (and ahadith).

One can perhaps try to generalize Plato's argument about Greek gods always
quarreling, etc. into trying to analyze and find logical inconsistencies in
these books. Indeed people have noticed these, e.g. in the case of Quran sone
suras that seem to contradict earlier ones, but they have explained these away
with various ingenious devices, because they are pious.

So, we arrive at the analytic situation where people are pious because they
follow the book and they follow the book because they are pious, which to me
is equivalent to the Euthypros's definition.

~~~
StavrosK
The difference is that the Greek mythology is different from, eg, the Hebrew
one. The former had relatable Gods, with all the human insecurities, foibles
and inconsistencies, while the latter had a God that handed down a consistent
message about morality.

I don't know that saying "piety is what the Christian God says is piety" is
useful, because in that case it is your responsibility to have sex with your
brother's wife if he can't conceive a child, to not kill your slaves unless
they've damaged your property and to beat your wife only with a thin stick,
and not a thick one.

The point is that, in any religion, someone picks and chooses. That may be
you, or it may be the scholar/marketing person who wanted the message to be
relatable, up to date and consistent. So the question becomes, when the choice
comes, what is chosen?

------
kordless
Dialog between two entities is pretty much all there is. If you screw with the
dialog, suffering results.

