The Third Definition Of Holiness In The Euthyphro, By Plato

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 Plato’s Euthyphro, a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, the nature of piety is discussed. Euthyphro proposes several “definitions” of piety and focuses on the relation of piety to the gods. For one of these definitions, he proposes that piety is that which is loved by all the gods. In reply to this, a dilemma arises; and Socrates asks whether the pious, or holy, is loved by the gods because it is pious, or pious because it is loved by the gods. A similar form of this question asks whether the Good, or good action, is commanded by God because it is good, or good because it is commanded by God. If Euthyphro accepts the

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

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

* But since different Gods think different things are good how do we decide what is holy

Q11. How does Socrates derive the conclusion that “the same things then are loved by the gods and hated by the gods”? Is this a correct deduction from the statements Euthyphro previously agreed to?

In Plato's dialogue, 'Euthyphro', Socrates presents Euthyphro with a choice: `Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved [by the gods]?'

Philosophers are known to question, analyze and evaluate everything but do not always end with concrete conclusions. Plato’s Euthyphro and Apology, to no surprise, highlight one of such debate: the human characteristics of wisdom. Though Plato was one of the earliest philosophers, the topic of wisdom is still debated by modern philosophers today, contemplating questions such as “What are the classifications of ‘wisdom’?” According to Plato’s two dialogues, the characteristics of wisdom have a strong correlation with the characteristics of “being a good person”. This concept highlights the values of virtue and selflessness and at the same time juxtapose views on virtue while taking into account the different forms of rationality. In this paper, I will highlight how Plato uses his two dialogues to enforce his own opinion about the relationship between being wise and being a good person, and evaluate the inconsistencies within this claim.

The third definition of holiness Euthyphro gives Socrates is that it is what is approved of by the gods, slightly differentiating from the last one. Socrates pounces on this as well. His argument against this one is a little more complicated and I am not sure I have it right. I believe Socrates is saying that how does one know if something is holy just because it was approved of by the gods. Did the gods approve of it because it was holy or is them approving it what makes it holy? This question perplexes Euthyphro and in desperation he just says that Socrates is manipulating his arguments and making them not get anywhere. Socrates replies to this by saying that he is just asking questions and it is Euthyphro's answers that aren't getting anywhere. He then tries to help Euthyphro by asking him if what is holy is always just and if whatever is just is holy. While Euthyphro

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

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.

that they are at odds with each other" (Plato, 11). "They [the gods] consider different things to be just beautiful, ugly, good, and bad." (Plato, 12). This is a good argument in that, the gods would not agree on piety, therefore piety cannot be simply what is dear to the gods. It must be something else.

& 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).

In his work Euthyphro, Plato introduces a religiously based moral code. This code, the divine command theory, stresses the pleasing of god in one’s moral actions. Plato’s characters, Euthyphro and Socrates, take turns in a debate defending and criticizing this theory. Its flawed nature is uncovered and we as readers are able to notice its advantages and disadvantages. Using these criticisms, revisions to the divine command theory have been made. After analyzing the divine command theory and noting both its advantages and its critiques, I largely agree with the criticisms that are made about it. However, with certain revisions, it can be transformed into a reliable and successful philosophy.