Euthyphro, endowed with an abundant knowledge of things subject to divinity, provides obscure reasoning for the concept of piety and premises thereafter. The perpetual sequence of premises Euthyphro provided begat an explicit argumentative flaw that came to be known as the Euthyphro Problem.
The Euthyphro Problem, which surfaced during casual discourse between Socrates and Euthyphro, is, in essence, a result of the effects of the incredulous nature of the Socratic method. In that the rapid questioning of Socrates spawned the flaw in Euthyphro’s definition of pious. After being asked by Socrates, Euthyphro explains that his definition of pious is to be loved by the Gods and impious to be hated by the Gods. However, as highlighted by Socrates, during this time it was the norm for Gods to be at odds with one another, hence, one God may think one act is pious while the one God may believe the act is impious. Which renders Euthyphro’s definition of piety and impiety inadequate. To this point, after further questioning and cross examination, Euthyphro holds that a pious act is one loved by the Gods and that the act is loved by the Gods because it is pious. This, in essence, is the Euthyphro problem. The circular explanation of a belief in which one defines a premise on the basis of another premise where that premise is justified by the premise it previously defined. Simply put, the Euthyphro Problem is appealing to what you’re explaining in the explanation. This is commonly found