Euthyphro

Euthyphro and Socrates Euthyphro is a dialogue by Plato [ca. 399–395 BCE]. The main characters are Socrates and the religious prophet Euthyphro. Dialogue about events occurred before the trial of Socrates in 399 BCE. Euthyphro and Socrates try to establish a meaning for the word piety.

What is Piety? 1. Reverence for God (or gods) or devout fulfillment of religious obligations. 2. Dutiful respect or regard for parents, homeland, etc. 3. High morality. Piety is a rich term that encompasses religious devotion, respect for authorities, moral excellence.

The Facts One day, a dependent who worked as a field laborer on Euthyphro’s farm got drunk and killed one of the domestic servants. Euthyphro’s father bound the drunk worker hand and foot and threw him into a ditch, and then sent to Athens to ask what he should do with him. Meanwhile he never attended to him and took no care about him because he regarded him as a murderer, and thought that no great harm would be done even if he died. And he did die due to cold and hunger and chains upon him before the messenger returned from Athens. Euthyphro’s family are angry with him for taking the part of the murderer and prosecuting his father. They say that the father did not kill him, and that if he did, the dead man was but a murderer, and so why worry? They say that a son who prosecutes a father is impious. Euthyphro claims that his family’s reaction shows how little they know what the gods think about piety and impiety.

Socrates’ Reaction Socrates is stunned by Euthyphro's confidence in prosecuting his own father despite the fact that Athenian Law allows only relatives of the dead man to file suit for murder. And despite his family are unhappy about Euthyphro’s Euthyphro confirms that he is an expert in religion and morality: he knows what pleases the gods. Socrates asks Euthyphro to teach him what he knows about piety and impiety since he is being prosecuted for allegedly being impious: Corrupting the youth of Athens. Not believing in the gods of the state.

Euthyphro’s Definitions Euthyphro accepts to teach Socrates the nature of piety. Euthyphro argues that piety has to do with our relationship with the gods. He claims that piety depends on the gods. He argues that certain acts, beliefs, people, etc., are pious if the gods regard those things as pious. Obviously, he believes that what he is doing (prosecuting his father) has the approval of the gods and so it is the pious thing to do. And what his father has done (allowing the drunk worker to die) is disapproved by the gods, and so it is an impious act. Euthyphro gives a definition of piety, which is amended twice. So there are 3 versions of the same definition.

Definitions: Definition 1: E: 1. Pious is “to do what I do.” Euthyphro claims that piety consists in prosecuting a person for wrongdoing, regardless of your relationship with that person. Socrates responds: This is not a definition. This is an example. If I ask you: what is love? And you show me your husband/wife, that is not love but rather and example of love. A definition is general and applies to many cases.

Pious is what is dear to the gods. Definition 2: Pious is what is dear to the gods. This implies that what Euthyphro is doing (prosecuting his father for murder) is dear to the gods. Also, it implies that what Euthyphro’s father did (allowing a worker to die) is not dear to the gods. But how does Euthyphro know this? Socrates points out: what is dear to the gods? Euthyphro admits that the gods often disagree with each other. They do not disagree on 2+2 = 4! Then it must be that they disagree on love, justice, beauty—and piety.

Euthyphro claims that on the subject of murder, all gods agree it’s impious. What proof does Euthyphro have of this? Besides, it is not always clear that an act is murder. In fact, whether an individual is a murderer is debated in courts of law. And if there is disagreement among the gods, it seems likely that they disagree about murder as well.

Euthyphro accepts the amendment. However… Consider this: Definition 2a: Socrates then suggests: Perhaps you should amend the definition to this: Pious is what all the gods love. Euthyphro accepts the amendment. However… Consider this: (A) Is the pious loved by all the gods because it is pious?, or (B) Is something pious because it is loved by all the gods?

Option (A): Something is loved by all the gods because it is pious. Hey all, look! It is the pious. We all love it.

Option (B): Something is pious because it is loved by all the gods? Hey all, look! Do we all love it. Yes! So it is pious

So? So which is it, (A) or (B)? Is the pious being loved because it is pious or is it pious because it is loved? Euthyphro reply: The gods love the pious because it is pious. Bu then it doesn’t matter what the gods love or hate! If all the gods love the pious because it is pious, then the pious is independent of the gods! This means the pious is already pious, independently of whether the gods love. So it would seem that the gods cannot not love it! At any rate, the point is this: the gods do not make a decision as to what is pious and what is not.

So Euthyphro reply: Actually it is (B): When all the gods love something, it becomes pious. But then piety is arbitrary. Piety is based on the whim of the gods! The gods could change their minds on their decision to deem something pious. This spells trouble for Euthyphro because if this is so, then what proof does he have that prosecuting his father is the pious thing to do? Furthermore, what proof does Euthyphro have that the all the gods love what he is doing and will continue to love it?