When Euthyphro, a great theologian, meets Socrates the great philosopher outside King Archon’s court, he is amazed that such a great man as his friend Socrates could be prosecuted. After exchanging casual regards, they narrate to one another the reasons as to why they are waiting outside the court. It becomes apparent that Euthyphro is at the court to sue his father for the murder of a servant of his. Conversely, Socrates is at the court as a defendant after a young man, who Socrates considers wise has leveled charges of incitement against him. Socrates becomes interested in knowing what on earth could drive a man to sue his own father. Euthyphro explains to him that many people have termed this act as impious or unholy (Plato, 2009). Euthyphro further explains that he does not understand why his folks consider the act as being impious. It is at this point that Socrates seeks to understand Euthyphro’s point of view on the aspect of piety. This is how the concept of holiness or piety comes into the conversation. The concept takes center stage in the conversation because Socrates seeks to understand what piety is, hoping that understanding the concept will enable him conduct his defense successfully in the charges leveled against him, by Meletus, the young Athenian.
In trying to explain what piety is, Euthyphro gives three explanations. In the first explanation, the great theologian says that piety or holiness is that which he is doing – suing his father for the murder of his servant. In straightforward terms, Euthyphro says that holiness is prosecuting all wrong doers irrespective of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Socrates refutes this description saying that this is not a definition, but rather an example (West et al, 2008). He asks Euthyphro to give that one characteristic that differentiates holy from unholy. In his second definition, the theologian says that it is holy, that which is liked by the gods. Again, Socrates refutes this definition on the grounds that the gods do differ on principle. They do conflict, and even fight in extreme cases. For example, argues Socrates, not all gods could approve of a decision by a son to sue his father over the death of a servant that was awaiting the arrival of holy men who would have decided his fate.
In his third definition, Socrates amends the second definition by saying that it is holy that which is loved by all gods (Plato, 2009). In refuting this definition, Socrates poses what is later referred to as Euthyphro’s dilemma. In his refuting, Socrates asks Euthyphro to clarify the relationship between an act and a state. In other words, Socrates wants Euthyphro to tell him whether something was holy because it is loved by the gods or loved by the gods because it is holy. This great dilemma compels Euthyphro to confess that indeed, defining holiness or piety is not easy as he cannot identify a single characteristic that differentiates holiness from a state of being unholy. After the third definition, Socrates goes on to give his own suggestion of what piety is, which he later criticizes. In the end, the two part without reaching an agreement as to what piety was or entailed.
In my opinion, Socrates’ goal is to prove that, indeed, there is nothing that can universally be accepted as holy. This, in my own thinking is because, Socrates does not seem willing to accept any definition that does not make clear the property that separates piety from impiety. In saying that even the gods conflict on matters of such decisions as what is right or wrong, Socrates is trying to imply that, if the gods, which are higher beings than humans cannot agree on all matters, and then all men cannot come to a common point regarding a definition of such thing as piety. In my opinion, therefore, Socrates is simply trying to imply that, that which is holy varies from one person to another or from one situation to another. The features of the conversation that align with my interpretation are such characteristics as the circular arguments in which the two thinkers engage. The conversation seems endless as Socrates is refuting every other definition. Additionally, Socrates critiques every definition, including his own. This is proving that according to Socrates, there is no such a thing as piety.
If I were to define piety, I would say that it is pious, that which both man and the gods will find no fault in. in other words, that which is acceptable, not only to all gods, but also to all men. In more straightforward terms, anything that lacks fault or evil is holy. Socrates would criticize this definition by saying that men are not homogeneous thinkers. Human beings think and judge things differently since not all people live in the same circumstances. Society, for instance, is made up of the poor and the rich. The way the poor could judge a thing is not the same way the rich would. As such, differences would occur in defining that which is holy. Similarly, the gods would differ on the same, since various gods relate differently to human beings. Additionally, each god stands for a different thing.
References
Plato, . (2009). Five Great Dialogues of Plato. Claremont, CA: Coyote Canyon Press.
West, T. G., West, G. S., Plato, ., Plato, ., Plato, ., & Aristophanes, . (2008). Four Texts on Socrates: Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, and Aristophanes' Clouds. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
