I've just gotten back my Philosophy Paper, and the grade is not bad.
For your reading pleasure.
The topic was something about defending Euthyphro's decision to prosecute his own father for causing the death of their dependent.
In the passage, Euthyphro indicts his father on the charges of murder of a dependent of their family whom is guilty of the murder of one of their household slaves. Euthyphro argues that it is being pious and holy to prosecute his own father for crimes he committed and he being a prophet knows it best. There are several approaches to attempt this question. Euthyphro is obviously not in the best of relationship with his father and perhaps that is one of the reasons why he has chosen to indict his father, however for purposes of this paper we could consider other arguments, which actually shows that his views are actually very valid and applicable in the real world.
Being an established prophet himself, Euthyphro has an image to maintain. How can he supposedly the bridge between men and gods have a father who is both unholy and guilty of a hideous crime of murder? Furthermore, in the “Euthyphro” Euthyphro has claimed that “Socrates – there wouldn’t be any difference between Euthyphro and the man on the street – if I did not have accurate knowledge of all such things.” (P.11) Clearly Euthyphro here is stating that he have absolute clarity with the definitions of holiness. With his expertise in the study of holiness and piousness, Euthyphro himself feels that there is a need for him to set the standards to the masses and to educate them on what is holy and the right thing to do. He also feels that he is obliged to answer to the public for the crimes that his father has committed. And by displaying justice in the form of prosecuting his own father for murder he feels that he has answered to the masses and also he is setting the standards for the correct thing to do so that the future generations could follow. Taking this argument into the real world, we could use an illustration of a policeman who knows his father committed a crime. Would it be the right thing to do for the policeman to turn in his father? Or is it pious for the policeman to keep mum about the incident and let his father go scot-free? The answer is pretty straightforward here, the policeman must remain professional and perform his duties to the best of his ability and thus he should turn in his father for the greater good of mankind. Therefore the same goes for Euthyphro as well, he being an established priest in Athens must be the role model for the people in his time and place to follow and look up upon.
Another striking point is that, Justice is supposed to be blind. It should be impersonal and not personal. As what Euthyphro says “One should only consider whether the killer acted justly or not; prosecute even a killer who shares your hearth and home. You are just as polluted if you intentionally remain under the same roof with a person like that, instead of purifying both yourself and him by bringing charges” (P. 10) The point Euthyphro is making here is that whoever the person is, he must be punished if he commits a crime. If you do not turn the person in, you are just as sinned as the person who commits the crime. As the Chinese saying goes, if the emperor commits a crime, he is entitled to the same punishments as a commoner. This is very true and in the current context you could even be charged with the harboring of criminals and obstruction of the proceedings of the law. How would you feel if someone related to a being of significant political power here in Singapore murdered your loved ones and yet uses his power to prevent the prosecution of his relative? Therefore the point Euthyphro makes here is very ethical and applicable to the current society. He cannot harbor his father and prevent justice from being done to the dead man by standing by his father for his crimes.
A question I would like to raise here is that, what is the link between filial piety and piousness? Filial piety is a subset of piousness; that filial piety is a derivation from piousness. So how can it be holy and pious for Euthyphro to prosecute his own father such that by doing so, he is disregarding the filial piety aspects of being pious? Since by its definition, filial piety is the love and respect of one’s parents and ancestors. It is therefore certain that by prosecuting his father, Euthyphro is not displaying any form of filial piety towards his father. However, the crux of this argument is not just about being filial pious, but being pious in the bigger picture. What Euthyphro had done there was in his own views upholding justice and doing what he ought to do, his father did commit the crimes and if he were to display signs of filial piousness by siding with his father, wouldn’t Euthyphro be acting against what was deemed as holy and what was the supposed right thing to do? As I said before, he being an established prophet must uphold righteousness whatever the case and in this situation the actions of his father which led to the death of another murderer. To neglect this and allow his father to be acquitted isn’t it more impious? It could also be seen that since Euthyphro is empowered with numerous religious knowledge, his prosecution of his father could also be a method by which he could use to atone for his father’s sins. By which he understands that his father has sinned but this is not obvious to his father and as the son, he believed that he ought to help him atone for his crimes by prosecuting him. If this were true, wouldn’t Euthyphro’s action be founded upon by filial piousness as well? Imagine a situation whereby a defense lawyer fighting the case for a serial murderer who was in the end acquitted due to the outstanding ability of the lawyer. By helping someone who has sinned to escape punishment hasn’t the lawyer done something impious?
Another question here is that whether Euthyphro’s father even commit a murder in the first place? What happened here is that when Euthyphro’s father found out that the deceased had murdered a slave of the family, he bounded him and seek advice from a religious adviser. While bounded, the murderer was deprived of food and water and was dead before the messenger could return. In this case, Euthyphro’s father did not explicitly kill the deceased; it was actually negligence on his part that led to his death. Therefore the charge on his father should not even be for murder, the most it warrant was a charge for manslaughter. Also, on (P.10) “…even if he had completely murdered him, the dead man, being a murderer, doesn’t deserve a second thought.” Euthyphro’s relatives believed that there wasn’t anything wrong with even murdering the man since he was himself a murderer. However, their argument here is very wrong, if anyone could just take up sword and kill someone in the name of upholding justice and righteousness, wouldn’t there be a lot of super heroes coming out from nowhere. And wouldn’t those who kill justly ultimately also be a murderer? And this would cause a vicious cycle as such - whereby B kills A and C kills B because B is a murderer of A and D kills C because C is the murderer of B. This could go on forever if this act is deemed just, but this is ridiculous, as no one should be allowed to murder anyone just because he or she is being just. We should always leave such matters to the authorities and thereby even though the relatives claimed that Euthyphro’s father acted justly and the deceased was not worth the trouble. The father’s actions did indeed cause the death of the man. Although the charge for murder could be too strong since it was negligence which resulted in the death, Euthyphro’s father is still guilty in causing the death.
In conclusion, Euthyphro’s action is justifiable because his father did commit an offence that led to the death of their dependent. Euthyphro on the other hand, was a prophet of his time and he felt obliged to educate the masses on the matter of piousness and what was more appropriate than prosecuting his own father to show that he is impartial and that justice is blind. Such that anyone who commits and offence must be duly punished.
