I would categorize Socrates as prudent and Euthyphro as non-prudent. Euthyphro’s belief in holiness as being able to punish offender is beyond doubt the most stupid belief on earth. It is not a surprise that most people have always shared the same idea as Euthyphro and they can do anything to push their faith. Even in the Bible significant personnel like Paul shared a similar belief until they got transformed. An idea that kills humanity in some should be discarded, in fact, people holding such beliefs should not exist in the society. Socrates is prudent because he does not apply the rule of an eye for an eye. He uses sarcasm to make his accuser understand that he is doing wrong. He could have told him directly but being a wise man he uses an indirect approach.
The Bible presents a real case of prudence in the book of acts. Paul in the bible goes around persecuting those who believe in Christ. He believes service to God involves even killing to achieve your goal. The story turns around, however when he meets Christ and changes his heart. Religion, in this case, is used maliciously. The practices the religious leaders engage in are not actually in line with most Bible teachings like forgiveness and the Ten Commandments. It is not prudent to behave contrary to the belief you teach to other people. That is the sheer stupidity in the history of religion. A similar situation is seen in the case of Jesus and the Pharisees in the Bible.
A condition of prudence can also be observed among the medieval philosophers such as Ibn Rush who lived before 1500. He substantially supports the beliefs of Aristotelian philosophers. His opposition to the Muslims religious teaching makes him seem to be non-prudent. Consider this; religion is the lever upon which all life beliefs hang upon. Opposing religious teaching is like being against the very fabric that holds the society together. All religions including Islam believe that what happens is because of God’s will. A disagreement to this is a lack of wisdom and prudence. How can God create things and let them happen according to natural laws and not by His will? This is an overstatement of the powers and ability of God. This belief made most people who believed in Ibn to among the Muslim to miss trust him. It is not a surprise, therefore, to understand why his work gained popularity among the Christians. To read this, in a nutshell, the Christians were celebrating his opposition to the Muslim religion. A situation that portrays him as confused and lacking prudence, his works as a scholar should have promoted in his moral stand rather than doing the opposite.
Prudence is not just about supporting a common belief but about support your view the right way and after proper consideration. That the situation is seen in Galileo Galilei, who leaves after 1500. He stirs forth the belief that earth was not constant but rather revolving despite the great challenge from the Christians who even present biblical proofs to oppose the opinion. He does not engage in an argument with the churches but rather present his ideas in most friendly manner and engaging them in his astronomical observations. What a beautiful way to challenge the status quo. So much maturity is seen in his ways of deeds, and it is no wonder his views are quickly accepted after some time. This is a manifestation of real prudence.
The culture of the Americans has been marred for so many years by issues of racism and cultural miss trust to the extent that it people lost prudence. The blacks have been mistreated and viewed as lesser people as opposed to the whites. It is not prudent to judge people based on their skin color. This is even sorrowful when it happens in the world most powerful nation. This is part of Socrates believe in minding one’s own business. It is cultivated to the point that people push only personal agenda. This is an indication that when people lack prudence, they become inhuman and concentrate on self.
In conclusion, prudence is a matter of keen interest in the works and life of Socrates. He feels that it should be the guiding principle when responding to issues and matters that might cause conflict. He insist that prudence should not be mistaken for fear but should be understood as being cautious in life. He holds the faith a prudent life is so beautiful. This gives the reason as to why he wants everyone to share in his thoughts. In fact in the dialogue before the jury, when asked questions, he does not just give answers but involves the audience in the argument. As a matter of fact instead of being interrogated, he ends up asking his jury questions. He does it in such an unpredictable manner and this shows how far prudence can uplift someone even in the face of difficulty.