Euthyphro Dialogue Analysis

Throughout the dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates, they both try to come up with an understanding of the relationship between piety and justice. Within the discussion, Socrates questions Euthyphro to see if he can define the difference and similarities between justice and piety, and if they interact with each other. Eventually, Euthyphro and Socrates came up with the conclusion that justice is a part of piety. This is the relationship that I agree most with because in my own opinion, I believe that all of the gods and people agree that human beings who commit unjust actions need to be punished for their actions.

The main question of this dialogue is the definition of the word holy or piety. Euthyphro brags that he is more knowledgeable than his father on matters relating to religion. In this case, Socrates suggests to Euthyphro to define that term. The first definition fails to satisfy Socrates because of its limitation in application. Apparently, Socrates perceives this definition as an example rather than a definition. Subsequent arguments and line of questioning lead to five sets of definitions that are refined to find the general definition. Socrates expects that the acceptable general definition of the question will act as a reference point in his defense.

Socrates helps Euthyphro to give meaning to the word ‘piety ', and this serves to bring a new meaning to the respect to the divine beings and help in the explanation of the whole context of the divinity in the society. In this manner, there is the need to create a clear definition and help Euthyphro in getting ideas that he can use to teach Socrates to answer the resulting question about the piety. This is to enable Socrates to have a string defense against the charge of impiety and help in tackling the challenges that he faces in the society. The story and the relationship between Socrates and Euthyphro arise when Socrates is called to court to answer to the charges of impiety by Meletus, (Plato et al, 1927). In the courts, Socrates meets Euthyphro, who comes to the courts to prosecute his father who is a murderer.

However in Plato’s Euthyphro, it can be argued that Socrates plays a similar role. In the Euthyphro, Socrates discusses piety in general and what makes things and people pious. Socrates claims he wants to learn more on the subject so that he may better defend himself against the treasonous charges against him. In a way, Euthyphro represents the traditional Athenian way of thinking. He believes in and supports all of the gods and does not submit to Socrates’ prodding of the subject, although he does walk away from him in frustration at the end of the dialogue. However it can safely be said that most Athenians would agree with Euthyphro’s opinion of the gods and to disagree could most certainly be punishable by law, as Socrates was. Socrates’ search for the definition of piety is a difficult one that tests Euthyphro’s patience and ultimately leaves the characters and the reader without an answer. Every time Euthyphro proposes an answer, Socrates is quick to counter it with some thought. Interpreting Socrates’ tone and meaning here is important. Some may see Socrates to be quite demeaning in these instances, almost teasing Euthyphro because he claims to be so pious yet he cannot even define the word. In this way, similar to Aristophanes’ Clouds, Socrates plays a subversive role in the Euthyphro.

Euthyphro’s argument is hurt extensively by the information he neglects to mention. Euthyphro does not say whether he witnessed the crime in person, or if he heard about it at a later date. He does not outline how he knows the information he puts forth, and fails to mention his own role in the scenario, which is crucial to the credibility of his accusatory words. If, by Euthyphro’s logic, his father is a murderer due to intentional neglect of the slave who died, then Euthyphro himself can be considered an accomplice, or a murderer as well for being present for or aware of the killing as it occurred and doing nothing to prevent it. His sloppy thinking results in self-incrimination through his own potential unjust behaviors, thus ruining the cogency of his view. There is no mention of Euthyphro’s relationship with his father, either. It is entirely possible that the father and son have a history of intense strife, and if Euthyphro has a grudge with his father over a prior conflict, his entire argument is flawed at its foundation. His motive for prosecuting his father could be revenge rather than the pursuit of justice and truth in the events that may or may not have happened in the way Euthyphro describes them. Any detail given by Euthyphro could be fabricated for the sake of retribution, aside from the death itself. The perishing of the slave is the only part of Euthyphro’s narrative which has physical evidence (that being the corpse of the slave). Everything else has to be believed as truth in order for Euthyphro’s claims to achieve the goal of cogency, but the speculative nature of his thinking makes trusting his words a difficult task. Before even stepping into the courtroom, it is obvious that Euthyphro’s defense is faulty due to what it lacks.

Euthyphro responds by asserting that piety is that which is approved [loved] or sanctioned by the gods; whence impiety is whatever is disapproved of by the gods. However, as Socrates points out, the question poses a dilemma for those who believe as Euthyphro does that Truth is revealed by divine authority alone.

Socrates and Euthyphro cross paths one day at the courts of Athens. At the time, Euthyphro was there to prosecute his father for murder. Socrates takes the opportunity to ask Euthyphro what the meaning of piety is. In this paper, I exam the issue at hand, how Socrates uses his question to doubt Euthyphro’s thesis, and give an explanation as to what this question means for someone who maintains that God is the origin or foundation of morality.

On trial is a man accused of murder and the defendant is Euthyphro’s own father. When Socrates learns this, he is rightfully shocked and astonished that Euthyphro would attempt to ensure the conviction of his father, as any person would. Socrates then asks how and why Euthyphro would do such a thing, to which Euthyphro he says piety is the demands his father’s conviction and punishment because “What is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious,”. Dissatisfied with this response, Socrates questions if something is pious because the gods command it or if the gods command it because it is pious. Euthyphro’s response to this question explains that the gods command an action because it is pious.

He says by learning from Euthyphro he could strengthen his argument in court and claims it would give him a possible appeal in court by saying he was under the tutelage of Euthyphro, an expert in his field, and that by challenging Socrates Meletos would be insulting and challenging the teachings of Euthyphro. It is through this method that Socrates poses as the willing and eager student and Euthyphro the wise teacher. Euthyphro first presents the argument, which by all accounts due to his proclaimed expertise he believes to be absolutely and irrefutably the truth, that holiness is the practice of persecuting religious offenders. Socrates disagrees with this notion saying there are many other holy deeds besides persecuting religious offenders. Euthyphro suggests holiness is what is agreeable with the gods to which Socrates cleverly explains that the gods often quarrel mirroring that of humans in the sense that the opinion of one may not be the shared opinion of all.

Socrates was a moral philosopher who was accused of impiety and was about to be tried for a crime, the nature of which no one seemed to understand. The trial and death of Socrates has four dialogs known as the Euthyphro, the Apology, the Crito, and the Phaedo which describes the process of Socrates’ controversial and insightful trial that raises the questions about human morality. Within the story we learned that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as clear-cut as some might think, Socrates forces the witnesses of his trial as well as ourselves to come to conclusions which result in a paradox that conflicts with the individual beliefs of his audience. In the event in which, Socrates poses a question to himself and Euthyphro, an attempt to answer the question "What is piety?" It has a specific tie to the events in “The Trial and Death of Socrates”, for Socrates had been accused of impiety and was about to be tried for the crime of heresy. The Euthyphro dialogue was written twenty-four centuries ago, and its conclusion is devastating for the whole idea that holiness and morality are very well connected. The idea that, “if God does not make something good by commanding it, but rather instead identifies that which is good, what measurement of morality does he use to make this judgment?” If something is right because god commands it, then it follows that something would be just as right if God instructed differently. If god declares that it is right to

pious, but every answer he offers is subjected to the full force of Socrates' critical thinking. Socrates systematically refutes Euthyphro's

In Euthyphro, Socrates is on his way to his trial for impiety when he runs into Euthyphro. Euthyphro is on his way to trial as well, but he is the prosecutor in his trial. He is trying his own father for the murder of a servant. Socrates asks him to teach him about what is holy so that he might be able to defend himself better. Socrates asks Euthyphro to teach him, but as you read you

Holiness is a central theme in the Socratic dialogue with Euthyphro. Socrates has taken up the ironic role of a student in the narrative as he attempts to gain knowledge of what holiness entails, from Euthyphro. Socrates meets with Euthyphro as they meet at a court in Athens. He seeks to gain knowledge on holiness, such that, he can use the insights in his trial against Meletus. Earlier, Meletus had charged him for impiety in a court. This justifies the importance that has been placed on the idea. In the ensuing dialogue, Euthyphro serves different definitions of holiness to Socrates. However, each of these is questioned, casting ambiguity over his supposed knowledge.

Euthyphro’s second definition is linked to the gods. He explains that “Pious is what all the gods love, and the opposite, what all the gods hate, is impious” (9, e), meaning that piety is determined by the gods. Socrates finds this to be false, due to the fact that in order for the gods to decide what is pious, they would all have to agree. However, each god has his/her own opinion about what is honorable or just and what is not. Therefore, a decision is difficult to reach and Socrates concludes that this definition cannot be true. This definition however is the most important one because Socrates creates a strong

Socrates asked Euthyphro about the definition of piety and impiety. Euthyphro attempted a couple of times to answer Socrates’ question, and he finally defined piety as “the pious is what all the gods love, and its opposite, what all the gods hate is the impious” (Reeve and Miller 58). Then, Socrates responded to Euthyphro by asking him a question which was also the challenge; Socrates asked, “is the pious loved by the gods because it’s pious? Or is it pious because it’s loved?” (Reeve and Miller 58). This question not only gives Euthyphro a challenge to his definition of piety, but it also challenges the theists’ view of commands of God. In Socrates’ question, there are two interpretations about the commands of God. One interpretation is the divine command theory, this theory is that whatever god’s commands equal to the moral goodness; “wrong acts are wrong because god prohibits them, and good acts are good