Socrates Essay

Laayla Muhammad

There is a massive amount of support behind the idea that Socrates is being inconsistent in his defense when he claims to be sent on a mission by the Oracle at Delphi, when he was being critical towards Eurythphro for appealing to the will of the gods in justification for prosecuting his own father. This paper will argue such misconceptions and state that Socrates is not being contradictory in his defense because of variety of reasons. Socrates’ intentions are pure, for he actually seeks the correct answers and justifies everything with reason. Eurythphro, on the other hand, could not explain why he believed what he did, leaving Socrates to question his decisions. Socrates’ only mentions the gods in his defense because the specific crime that he has been accused of, relates to them.

When Socrates hears that the Oracle at Delphi claimed no man was wiser than him, he began to question what the actual meaning of such a statement was. He states, “I very reluctantly turned to some such investigation as this,” (Plato 24), which shows how he went seeking for answers even though it seemed as if the oracle was a clear message to begin with. Socrates approached every man who was known to be wise, with intentions to refute the oracle and prove that there are men who are wiser than he is. Instead, to Socrates’ surprise, these men were not wise at all even though they claimed to be. Socrates concluded that wise individuals such as authors, poets and craftsmen only possessed the skills needed in the particular field they are successful in. Socrates states, “Each of them, because of his success at his craft, thought himself very wise in other most important pursuits, and this error of theirs overshadowed the wisdom they had” (Plato 26). The fact that Socrates did not claim to know it all when he knew more than anyone else, made him the wisest man, as the oracle had stated. Socrates didn’t just rely on the word of the gods blindly, like Eurythphro did. He tried his best to interpret the oracle and questioned it, which was provided by the gods themselves.

Eurythphro seemed to be entirely convinced that he was committing a pious act by persecuting his own father for a murder of a murderer, just because he believed that the all the gods believed murder to be wrong. When Socrates question what the definition of piety and impiety was, Eurythphro could not give him a satisfying answer. The society claims that Socrates was quick to critique Eurythphro when he used the wills of the gods to justify his action, yet was doing the same thing in his defense in the court. This reason could not be right because Eurythphro could not even provide Socrates with an actual definition of piety. Eurythphro kept on changing his answers from first stating, “What is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious” (Plato 7) to later saying, “The godly and pious is the part of just that is concerned with the care of the gods” (Plato 15). When the answer was being sought, the reason why Eurythphro believed what he did became unclear and unjustified. He claimed to follow actions that would please the gods, yet was not able to convince Socrates of how sure he was. Socrates on the other hand, tested the words of the gods, and did not blindly trust them. With reason, Socrates’ defense that he was on a mission sent by the gods seemed to have a great justification while Eurythphro was confused about what the definition of piety even was. This was ironic, especially when it something he was trying to use as a justification.

The main reason why people believe that Socrates was contradicting himself was because he did not believe in the gods, yet was using their existence to claim to have been on a mission sent by them. This confused the public, and made them assume that Socrates was lying and playing games with the court system. In actuality, Socrates had many reasons to use the gods in his defense, one of them being that the crime itself related to the gods. He had to mention the existence of the gods, because when he questioned these so called wise men, he was trying to find out what the oracle meant. The subject of the case appeals to the gods, so Socrates had to mention them in his defense. It is said that Socrates does not even believe in the gods because he criticized Eurythphro for believing in them. This is not true because Socrates did not question the existence of the gods; he only questioned how one can be sure of what the gods think of as pious and impious. Another reason Socrates appeals to the gods is that citing the highest and oldest authority will be more reliable to the people of the court. For example, between an educated doctor who has his doctorate degree and some random stranger at a grocery store, one will most likely trust the doctor when seeking medical advice. The same rule applies here, for the fact that the gods have been part of these people’s lives for many years and have continued to please them. The gods also have more ability to figure out the truth and possess the most experience.

Mentioning the gods and using them to justify ones actions does cause a controversy because it is impossible to prove such an authority wrong. Considering that, people have to realize that Socrates was not being contradictory in any way when he decided to use the gods in his defense since his critique on Eurythphro’s decision on persecuting his own father was of a different matter. If the murderer wasn’t Eurythphro’s father, the situation would have been less complicated because Eurythphro’s decision on persecuting the murderer would not have included the future death of his father. Socrates was sent on a mission by the gods, which was something he sought and made sure of. If Socrates would not have investigated the oracle, then maybe people would have had a legitimate reason to state that he was contradicting himself. Otherwise, the truth is that Socrates did not contradict himself and actually had justifiable reasons to become critical of Eurythphro’s actions.