I'll be breaking my responses up a little into sections. I also didn't respond immediately because, admittedly, I'm guilty of searching for some cookie cutter answers throughout the texts. Without finding anything entirely satisfactory, I kind of put it all off to the side. Without further ado:
What does Socrates think is the role of philosophy in a good life?
I would argue that Socrates, or at least Plato's perversion of the philosopher, believes that the role of philosophy is to educate the uneducated through questioning. Since the character of Socrates comes within inches of shouting at everyone that they're a bunch of sheeple, he seems to obviously hold the whole of his peers in low regard. (Silly little Sophists, Socrates is the smartest of them all.) Socrates certainly should have his place on /r/iamverysmart, though I think that Euthyphro should as well.
*What about Euthyphro and the citizens of Athens? *
Euthyphro and his peers seem to operate in terms of absolutes. They allow little growth in any manner of their thinking, and often stick to theological philosophies as guiding principles. Their adherence to morality as dictated in religious texts, beliefs, and societal norms is rigid. They are praised for their dedication to these values as it seems to be heavily integrated into their society as a whole. Having a basis for a value system already in place removes any of the effort required to gain better insight into morality, ethics, and philosophy as a whole.
What do you think?
Socrates is quite the jackass.
But in all seriousness, I think there is a strong pull for me to agree with either side. I'm a big fan of having consensus, a set of ideals and moral values which we can all agree on and build off of. At the same time I certainly don't want to be a dope to a Socrates like character. I think there's a lot that goes into this, and while there's a lot to come of questioning, there's a lot that I think can come of common opinion. I don't mean to say that I condone kind of a mob mentality here, certainly there should always be a presence of opposition. There's merit to all sides, and a balance must be struck.
*Further, how do you respond to "the Euthyphro question? Do you think something is good because it has some intrinsic characteristic that makes it so, or do you think it is because it is consistent with the personal preferences of an individual person, a group, or society as a whole? *
I'd argue that there is nothing intrinsically good, or bad about anything. With the variation of preference, there is no absolute understanding by all of any moral, any action, any object that is to be considered either good, bad, or any other defining characteristic. The unfortunately unsatisfying understanding I have is that values are entirely contrived from the individual. We likely share values as a result of teaching, and other external influences. The preferences of the individual are fairly mailable, we often seem to simply attempt to mold them in the wrong way. Society as a whole may hold a perspective, but any individual can differ, and can be made to differ. Such is the fragility of our conscious mind, an area where we lack a significant amount of control despite the feeling of having all of the control over our own thoughts. From my perspective, this is far more a discussion of psychology. Of course that requires a predefined perspective on personal identity, and that's an entire different discussion. We can go so far with this one question it's nearly impossible to answer. This is my belief, and while I believe it to be good, I know it to be nothing at all.
