The Incompleteness of Plato's Euthyphro Essay

In this paper, I argue that, in Plato’s Euthyphro, Euthyphro’s defense of the view that his father is a murderer is not cogent enough to effectively prove his point. I will present the argument that Euthyphro spends more time talking about himself and his decision to prosecute his father than he does discussing the actual crime. I will then present the argument that Euthyphro does not use specific, factual evidence to bolster his judgement.

Plato’s Socratic dialogue the “Euthyphro” concerns itself with the virtuous concept of piety and pious acts. Socrates holds that in order to be considered an expert in piety, one must truly understand what it means to be pious. The desire to distinguish the pious from the impious leads to dialectical discussion ultimately resulting in Euthyphro’s proposition of three definitions, including the proposal that piety is what is loved by all of the Gods (9e). Whilst Euthyphro’s first definitions are immediately rejected by Socrates, on the grounds that they are superficial and contradictory, there is some validity to the argument that piety by definition, is what is loved by all Gods. By amending the definition to add an element of universality

Euthyphro tells Socrates that he is prosecuting his father for murdering a servant. Euthyphro thinks prosecuting his own father is a right thing because it’s a pious action. Socrates then asks Euthyphro about the definition of a pious action or piety. Euthyphro answers “What is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious”. (Euthyphro 7a) After hearing this, Socrates discusses that there are enmities and disputes among gods as well.

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.

As Euthyphro is essentially a self-righteous man, he asserts that piety is to do as he is doing, "that is to say, prosecuting any one who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of similar crime whether he be your father or mother, or whoever he may be that makes no difference; and not to prosecute them is impiety" (Plato, 5e). Euthyphro's definition of piety contains many implications, the biggest of which is that Euthyphro considers himself to be a good example of piety in action.

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

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.

In the dialogue Euthyphro, Socrates debates the definition of piety with Euthyphro, a priest who's on his way to convict his father for murder. Although Socrates pleads for a clear definition of the term, Euthyphro continues to give unsatisfactory answers that are subsequently proven problematic by the philosopher. While no one definition is agreed upon in the dialogue, an acceptable definition that Euthyphro could have proposed is that piety involves ignoring human "wisdom" and pleasures (fame, wealth, reputation, etc.) and acknowledging/obeying the infinite wisdom of the divine. Ultimately, Socrates would have accepted this definition due to its acknowledgment that human wisdom and knowledge is insignificant; however, Euthyphro most likely did not offer this definition because of his pride and his

In Plato’s Euthyphro, we read about how Socrates is asking Euthyphro of piety and about the situation he is in. Euthyphro must judge a murder, and to the surprise of the audience, the murder was his father. As the scene goes on, Socrates keeps asking what Euthyphro means by piety. In the end, Euthyphro finally answers that piety is what the God’s love or demand. In The Ethical Life, they modify the question asked by Socrates to “Is an action morally right because God commands it, or does God command an action because it is right?”. This question brings up many other questions.

Euthyphro intends his definition of piety. If right actions are pious only because the gods love them, then moral rightness is completely

& 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).

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 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

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 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