Under normal circumstances, a question like this would be taken as an insult. It is a simple question that disassembles Euthyphro's entire argument because it requires that he provide the impossible or he loses all credibility to his case. Socrates must know this because he taunts his respect as a reward if the impossible is achieved, knowing that it cannot be done and he will simply never have to hold this agreement. At least this is how I interpret it.

I am wondering if the intention of asking this question was not only for an answer, but to refer to the situation with Euthyphro's father. His family is aware that he was responsible for the murder of the servant, but in fact argues that he should be let off because of the servant's evil history.

This is interesting to me because the claim of justification contradicts the claim of innocence and I find that this structure of phrase when used is almost certainly an admission of guilt. If one wanted to plead innocence, why would the add a reason for it to be justified. If one wanted to claim justification, why was it necessary to first claim innocence?

Here it would seem that the writer, despite how strongly written the rest of the piece is, allows for the fair observation of both his and the opposing points. At the very least, he does not dismiss the idea that one side is completely right or completely wrong. While the competition of a just and an unjust man to see who lives the happiest of lives is mostly likely impossible to observe in reality, it would be interesting to consider both possibilities.

On one hand, the just man may be happier having lived by the rules unpunished and likely rewarded with the same kindness, which would fulfill the hardwired need for social acceptance.

On the other hand, the unjust man may be happier having been free of restriction and regulation with access to whatever they desired through whatever means, fulfilling the hardwired drive to preserve and serve themselves.

This is precisely why I call the story into question. The point that no man would act justly if placed into a hypothetical situation cannot be proven or inferred with realistic evidence and is purely just that: hypothetical. One could easily claim that one such man has what Glaucon describes as an iron nature to withstand such temptations in that scenario and such a claim would hold equal weight to Gluacon's claim simply because it is also hypothetically possible.

What is the nature of this story and its creation? Knowing what we do now, this scenario is extremely likely to have occurred due to its supernatural nature, though curiously, there is an implication that this could have ties to reality through the mention of Croesus the Lydian.

Supposing that this may be true history, the merit of Glaucons perspective holds more value as a proven cause and effect example of his argument.

However, if the nature of the story is rooted in legend or rather served as a parable in his specific context, that would lessen the merit of Glaucon's perspective because it cannot be proven in reality that any person with a hypothetical ability will or will not behave a certain way.

After reading and listening to this speech, it's difficult to believe that this very profound speech was only part of a graduation ceremony and not its own event. The many times it references the fact throughout the speech, it always brought me back to this thought. Do you think that David Foster knew this speech was going reach more minds than just those who attended the event?