1
Brandon Capps
9/10/2012
Philosophy 2115
Brandon Capps Summary of Socrates in Euthyphro and The Apology
One could take the position of arguing that Socrates, in the works that can be found
about him, is uncertain of his own position on certain topics. This could lead to the assumption
that Socrates was, at times, inconsistent with his own statements. If one was to look beyond
the topics on which he spoke, and instead focused on the questions he proposed and the
critical thinking he attempted to draw out, then another view on the matter becomes clear.
Instead of Socrates forcing what he as one man believes to be the truth, he encourages others
around him to focus on the “why” aspect, and not so much the “what”. In his conversation
with Euthyphro, Socrates never gives support to taking a “position” on either side of an
argument. He simply attempts repeatedly to force Euthyphro to further analyze his own
actions.
Were there ever a time in which Socrates made his own opinion on the subject of an
argument, the argument that he would be inconsistent between the dialogues would certainly
have a platform. As it stands, however, he simply calls the views of other people involved in
the arguments (namely Euthyphro and Meletus) into question. In The Apology, Socrates is
defending himself in the court and still does not seem to take a particular view on the
accusations. He argues that he was simply attempting to force people to use their minds
beyond the context of their normal comfort level. To an extent, this is exactly what he did. His
2
methods certainly allowed for his own comedic tidbits to be thrown in, causing him to certainly
seem slanderous or to seem as though he simply desires to cause Meletus to seem like a fool.
Perhaps, were he to be a little less sarcastic at certain times, Socrates would not have been
perceived in the light in which it seems most people saw him.
In Euthyphro, there is a much more prevalent idea brought forward calling the Divine
Command Theory of Ethics into question. The theory, which basically states that the Gods are
who determine the concepts of right and wrong, and the idea that all things must be done as
the Gods wish them to be done. The question which Socrates brings forward is that of whether
things are pious because the Gods wish for them to be pious, or if the Gods wish for them to be
done because they are pious ideals. There is no time in which Socrates declares that he
believes in one side of the discussion more than the other. It seems that his motive for the
entire conversation is that he wants to force Euthyphro to have the realization, and
consequently the future knowledge, that he believes wholeheartedly in something that he has
not put as much thought into as he should have.
After analyzing the two writings, I feel that Socrates intentionally contradicts the points
that he brings up during a heated discussion in order to force further analysis of the subject
matter by the other participating members of his conversations. As such, he is contradicting his
own words, but not his own motives. Though he enjoys a bit too much sarcasm from time to
time, it seems as though his reasoning for argument is of a candid nature, and does not mean in
any way that he is attempting to expand upon his own ideas on a particular subject. Moreover,
it seems that he is benefitting from forcing people to think critically in that he learns more of
3
the workings of the human mind and the different views on certain largely argued issues of his
time. To that effect, my conclusion is that he is not being inconsistent so much as he is opening
an opportunity for all parties involved in his discussions to expand their horizons on all subjects
in a fundamental manner.