I'm trying to answer the philo questions. Feel free to copy my points of view, that makes me more correct and hence superior.
1) Since this is all about personal preference or something along those lines, for me I'd protect the close family member to the best of my ability. Should the scenario would come up that my parents (or one of them, or a loved one) would be guilty of a transgression punishable by death, a degree of selfishness would definately enter the picture. Yes, the law is supposed to be equal for everybody, but then again, nobody mentioned that I had to be a law-abider. Of course such an anarachic viewpoint won't serve the discussion as much. Putting myself in Euthrypro's shoes or a close approximation to it, however, would appear to have me indict my father whatever the cost, even at the end of the "debate" with Socrates. Then again, to talk to someone whose debates are irritatigly simple and later simply irritating would probably provoke one to refuse to budge even more. The moral rule of everyone having to be equal doesn't actually appear in my head, inasmuch as it's an altruistic position, and possibly a good position to take.
Perhaps one basic point we can see is how, inasmuch as we'd like to be rational beings, most of our thought processes are irrational, especially when we jump quickly to defend our own position, whether or not the foundation we stand on is shaky or non-existant.
How many crimes go on in the house that is unreported? How many children steal from their parents, and all that they receive is a sharp word or a slap? The person at the top of the household sets the rules, and perhaps this is their law. Sadly the murder of the helper was not as simple as that.
2) Another thing is how right and wrong are in fact in the eyes of the beholder. Does what the Greek gods do become a standard to live by? Especially as, as Socrates would probably mention, that their stories are written by the hand of man, and they are hence also given very human attributes. What then, allows the people who pen the myths the ones who can set the difference between right and wrong? We also see how the line between the other may not even be an obvious one, that what is dividing the 2 is fuzzy at best, such as what is holy and unholy. It would appear simple, as it is to Euthrypro, that it is something simple to come to conclusion to, but of course Socrates manages to totally destroy that thought. That is probably not to say Socrates is atheist, he possibly thinks the gods the Athenians look up too are basically too human to hold as examples to live by. I shall have to learn more about Socrates tho.
3) How would one deal with Euthrypro? It may sound defeatist, but yet quite possibly it may involve someone doing the same unto him, as he had done unto his father, then would he be able to see something from a different light. He currently stands on a higher moral ground (in his opinion) and to suddenly be brought down by Socrates, who even goes to the extent of professing to be "simple minded", would be a great shock to someone who feels his is of a great mind. What's holding it up? The belief that oneself is right, especially since Euthrypro does not one to look like a fool in front of everybody, especially after being chided, and then continuing to stand his ground.
One good thing one might want to do is to try, as Socrates did, to work out everything before coming to a conclusion. But then again, that would probably involve the ability to see things from all angles, and being human (a great excuse for doing wrong) we're prone to having our vision occluded by family or love or hate. There sometimes is no right view or the "wrong views" can somehow be rationalised, just by virtue of being thought up in a mind different from yours.
Debates can be good exercise, but it can also go out of hand. Sometimes the best way would be to step back and allow the dust to settle before trying to continue. Conceeding, sometimes, might be the best path. Of course, that may also invovle being utterly gutless. Still, we have Socerates digging holes in everybody's thoughts... not everybody likes a smart aleck.
In other news, I am now a proud owner of
From the Teeth of Angels by Jonathan Carroll. I AM SO HAPPY!!!!!!! Ah, Jonathan Carroll, I shall read! Jane Austen: I have to read you first. Boo.
Also, I've been listening to Funeral for a Friend's
Casually Dressed and Deep in Conversation. Somewhat metal and a little bit rock (don't get me started on defining genres), once again, I love the nice little acoustic-like track
Your Revolution is a Joke, the one that just goes a little bit slower after all that head banging. Sure, there's the pre-requisite angst, and some screaming, which I think can be really dumb (that's not singing) but the melodies really just hook you there. Why did I choose to listen to this band? Look at it's name! PHWOAR!!! It was either this or try Elbow, and Elbow's just this thing connected to your arm parts. I might give Elbow a chance later.
