Essay on The Euthyphro Dilemma

Socrates said, “…where there is piety there is also justice, but where there is justice there is not always piety, for the pious is a part of justice. Shall we say that, or do you think otherwise?” (Socrates, 15). Euthyphro agrees and then suggests that piety is simply taking care of the gods: “I think, Socrates, that the godly and pious is the part of the just that is concerned with the care of the gods, while that concerned with the care of men is the remaining part of justice” (Euthyphro, 16). Socrates quickly rejects this on the basis that “taking care” of the Gods would be concerned with making the Gods “better”. Socrates uses the example of caring for animals to illustrate his point. He said, “So dogs are benefitted by dog breeding, cattle by cattle raising, and so with all the others. Or do you think that care aims to harm the object of its care?” (Socrates, 17). Euthyphro objects and says that these acts aim to benefit these animals. So Socrates says, “Is piety then, which is the care of the gods, also to benefit the gods and make them better? Would you agree that when you do something pious you make some of the gods better?” (Socrates, 17). Euthyphro claims that "caring for the gods" involves the kind of care that “slaves take of their masters” (Euthyphro, 17). When questioned by Socrates as to exactly what is the definition of piety using this logic, Euthyphro can only return back to his earlier claim: piety is what is loved by all the gods. “I say that is a man knows how to say and do what is pleasing to the gods at prayer and sacrifice, those are pious actions such as preserve both private houses and public affairs of state. The opposite of these pleasing actions are impious and overturn and destroy everything” (Euthyphro,

Someone who would believe a statement such as this one would most likely be in agreement with the Divine Command Theory---the reason being that the main claim in this theory is, all that is morally right, is right because God commands it so. Therefore in order to believe in the Divine Command Theory, one would need to be a strong believer in God---and would truly believe that if there were no God, morality would be absent. With this in mind, if God is the creator of all that is morally right, and there turns out to be no god at all, then nothing is morally wrong or can be capable of being morally wrong---would be a statement that non-believers of the Divine Command Theory would believe, and believe that morality can exist on its own, with or without a God. In this paper I will focus on the Divine Command Theory in relation to the statement above, and those who would oppose this statement. In doing so, I will attempt to show why I believe that those opposing this statement have a more plausible view.

At the core of Socrates’ argument is the need to break down the definition of holiness into smaller coherent characteristics. Socrates uses a series of question that are consistent with Euthyphro’s argument to ensure that he [Euthyphro] offers a consistent flow of definitions of the word holy.

If it were the exact definition, only Euthyphro would be pious. He said that Euthyphro did not understand the difference between a definition and an example. Next, Euthyphro says that piety is found in things that are dear to the gods (7a). Socrates again rejected Euthyphro’s definition of piety. The Greek gods were anthropomorphic; therefore, another may despise what would be dear to one god. This definition offered was not distinct. Finally, Euthyphro said that what is pious is what loved by the gods (9e). However, Euthyphro can’t answer whether something is pious because it is loved or it is loved because it is pious. He can’t conceive the difference between cause and effect. It is in the Euthyphro that Socrates begins his defense of his actions and principles to the reader. A priest can’t give him a concise answer as to what is religious; therefore, how can anyone else, especially one less religiously guided than a priest, accuse him of blasphemous actions?

In this interaction, Socrates considers Euthyphro to help in explaining all there is to be known about piety and the related impiety. Euthyphro confirms that he is indeed an expert in the matter relating to religious issues and can thus assist Socrates in the charges that face him. In their argument in the efforts to define the true meaning of piety, Socrates and Euthyphro engage in the analysis of issues that threaten to confuse human understanding about the whole issue of holiness and impiety in the society, (Plato & Gallop, 2008). To understand the true meaning of piety, it is of great importance to take a holistic analysis of the beliefs of the people about

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.

Greek philosopher Plato’s account of the end of fellow philosopher Socrates’ life in The Trial and Death of Socrates includes a plethora of philosophical theories and ideas, but the one that stands out the most is none other than what is known as the Euthyphro Paradox. Found in the “Euthyphro” section of the book, Socrates brings up the idea of what is actually considered pious, or moral, by asking what exactly makes those things pious in the first place. More specifically, Socrates asks Euthyphro: “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” (Plato 11).

Socrates is brought to trail before the citizens of Athens, accused of not recognizing the gods that are recognized by the state. Euthyphro is brought to prosecute his father for murder. Before the trails, they discuss the definition of piety and what the difference is to impiety. Instead of a straight forward answer Euthyphro explains his position on prosecuting his father. Although his father murdered a murderer that fact that Euthyphro knew what his father had done. It would have impious of him to sit back and pretend his father was innocent of such a thing. Euthyphro also discusses the relation to Zeus castrating Cronos for devouring his children. Providing a point that no matter who you are, he who is unjust must get punished. As Socrates finds it difficult to believe such stories his finds himself questioning wether to believe or not. Socrates is in search of a direction definition as to what exactly is piety.

Holiness, or piousness, is the center of the conversation between Socrates and Euthyphro. Both of the men met on the porch of the King to deal with a legal matter; Socrates the defendant and Euthyphro the plaintiff. Socrates was being charged with

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

Plato's "Euthyphro" introduces the Socratic student both to the Socratic Method of inquiry and to, or at least towards, a definition of piety. Because the character of Euthyphro exits the dialogue before Socrates can arrive at a reasonable definition, an adequate understanding of piety is never given. However, what piety is not is certainly demonstrated. Euthyphro gives three definitions of piety that fail to mean much to Socrates, who refutes each one. In this paper, I will present Euthyphro's definitions along with Socrates' rebuttals. I will also show that Socrates goal in the dialogue is two-fold: 1) to arrive at a true definition, and 2) to exercise his method of teaching/inquiry. At the conclusion of this paper, I will give my own definition of piety and imagine what Socrates might say in response.

because, how can all the gods find everything to be pious when what is just to

& Jowett, 2013). Socrates refutes this definition since he views that the gods do not need to be assisted by mortals. In his final attempt, Euthyphro defines holiness as an exchange between the gods and human beings. The gods receive sacrifices from us, while we they grant our prayers in exchange. In response, Socrates posits that this perspective implies correlates to the prior argument on the gods’ approval. He states that if holiness is gratifying to the gods, it is ambiguous as seen in the argument concerning what the gods approve, and the influences behind them (Plato. & Gallop, 1997).

How exactly can we know God’s will? In divine command theory, God’s will is the only thing that determines morality. Theists will first point to the religious scriptures...but which one? A Christian might think it is obviously the Bible, but an objective viewer will have to choose between the Bible, Quran, Vedas etc. You can not say look at which one has the better moral arguments, since you’re trying to derive morality from the book! Another common source for morality is through people who have spoke to God. But many people claim this, so how do we know who is right? Someone might say that God told him to destroy a village; does this mean he is right? The final option is that God gave us reason and knowledge, and so morality is instilled in our very nature. But then, what is the point of believing in certain religions if people are going to act the same anyway? And people don’t act the same, so does that mean God is responsible for