The topic of Piety has been best discussed and covered by Plato in the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro. The two speakers engage in a verbal discussion on the applicability as well as the meaning of the word Piety. This essay will start out with a brief overview of the dialogue and will proceed to critically examine the concepts discussed between Euthyphro and Socrates. Lastly, the essay would also briefly discuss Plato’s view from my own viewpoint, while also examining my own notions of Piety.
Overview
The story starts out as a dialogue between Plato and Euthyphro. While Plato is himself being prosecuted, Euthyphro is present in that forum as a plaintiff who has brought charges against his father for the murder of a servant (who is himself a murderer), albeit out of negligence (Plato, 2008,4a & 4b). While Euthyphro feels that the ideas of Piety and Impiety of those times are wrong, Socrates feel that the matter should be up for debate since he had much to learn from Euthyphro’s outlook on the subject. In the ensuing debate, Euthyphro defines his own act as inherently pious, although his relatives have pointed out the impiousness of his act (4e & 5e). Clearly, Euthyphros idea of piety is the act of bringing charges against a person (howsoever close he or she may be) as a result of an impious act performed (in this case murder). However, Socrates is not satisfied with this definition of piety. As a result, Euthyphro advances another argument by saying that "Piety is what is dear to the gods and impiety is that which is not dear to them." (6e)However, this definition is also problematic as reasoned by Socrates since that which may be dear to one God may not be dear to others and the same can be said of impiety, thus rendering Euthyphro’s definition inherently fallacious. Further, Socrates raises the question whether all those who are Just are also pious? To this, Euthyphro answers in the affirmative. However, upon reasoning Euthyphro comes to the understanding that this hypothetical question is also plagued with incorrect answers since Justice and Piety do not go hand in hand. This is especially true since a Just man may not necessarily be pious. (12d) Further, as per Euthyphro’s assertion, a Just thing that one does makes the Gods better than they are, but, as we know, this cannot be true. Hence, both Socrates and Euthyphro reject the assertion of the linkages between Justice and Piety. As a result, Socrates manages to convince Euthyphro that his insistence on prosecuting his old father did not lay in the realm of the pious since Justice and Piety were not as closely linked as Euthyphro believed it to be.
Analysis and Criticism
The method that Socrates often uses in his philosophical analysis is known as dialectic. Such a method ideally consists of pointing out the inconsistencies and self-contradictions involved in popular statements made without thinking about their logical implications. In this instance, Socrates uses the method to highlight the shallowness of the Sophist thought.
As William Mann puts it, the dialogue of Socrates and Euthyphro highlights two different kind of pieties – a filial piety, wherein Euthyphro is forced to confront the ignominy of attempting to charge his own father with murder, and the divine piety wherein Euthyphro and Socrates discuss the moral component of piety and the ability (or inability) of the same to either please or displease the Gods (Mann, 1998, p. 134). However, if one analyzes this dialogue one sees that although Socrates plays down the importance of both the pieties, the reality is that we as humans bind ourselves to both the pieties. Most of us would perform duties to our parents and would ideally not put them in a spot that Euthyphro had put his father in. Therefore, Socrates and Euthyphro do not efficiently construct the argument from the point of view of the real world since even in Greece (as in most ancient cultures) filial piety was also considered extremely important. The fact that this aspect is not captured by Socrates indicates that either he failed to apply his theories to all scenarios or he was focusing particularly on the contemporary beliefs of his time.
Further, if one considers the aspect of divine piety, Euthyphro mentions that the things God love come under piety. To these lines, Socrates essentially says that the Gods have differences between themselves as to what constitutes piety and non-piety. One can clearly understand that Socrates lowered the scope of the argument and one could argue that Euthyphro probably had a better understanding of what the future might look like. For instance, Socrates’ argument held good in a polytheistic pantheon but it would fail to break ice in the present day Christianity. As one knows, in Christian Theology Piety is what God loves in us when we love God as the Father. (Mann, 1998, p. 142). Clearly, one sees that Socrates failed to extend the argument to a monotheistic faith since there were no multiple Gods to differently interpret piety and virtue.
The arguments put forth by Socrates follow a general pattern that more often than not ends up in complete and utter failure to elucidate the meaning of terms (Geach, 1966, p. 371). In this particular case, the term Piety is broadly discussed by both parties, and while Euthyphro is at least attempting to move towards the term in a pointed manner, the entire discussion seems completely futile since the no conclusive result comes out it and Socrates leaves the matter of understanding Piety for another day and time. In his work on the subject, P.T Geach (1966) illustrates the harmful effect of rejection of examples (the Socratic method) by considering the example of Theaetetus. When Socrates asks Theaetetus what knowledge is he replies by giving instances of knowledge such as geometry, shoemaking, pottery et.al. Socrates instantly rejects these stating that these are only examples and he is seeking to understand what knowledge is. (Geach, 1966, p.372). One could review a possible situation to understand this better. If Socrates were quizzed on the subject of Injustice, a youth might have said that “Cheating someone is unjust.” To this, Socrates would have demanded to know what exactly is Cheating – he would need to understand this through a core definition and not through mere examples. If the boy would not have known the definition, at some level he would have been convinced that Cheating is not unjust (implying that it could possibly be Just). Therefore, the dialogue would again end in the usual aporia, and the boy would go away with the lesson that it is fine to cheat people for a living (Geach, 1966. p. 372).
Therefore, one can see that it is of no practical use to be unduly impressed with the Socratic dialogue. The main fallacy here is that Factual questions are not necessarily decidable, while moral questions have not been shown to be essentially undecidable. Such a problem makes any argument presented by him in the format mentioned extremely weak and prone to collapse in debate.
Viewpoints
I personally feel that the viewpoint put forth by Plato (through Socrates) has extremely elementary moorings. The reason for this is the fact that in his dialogue Socrates rejects the definitions of Piety as outlined by Euthyphro but does not provide any concise definitions himself. On the other hand, Socrates, in fact, professes he does not know much about Piety and hopes to learn from Euthyphro. The dialogue is an excellent way of showing a beginner in Philosophy about the nature of fallacies that one can commit during a philosophical inquiry or debate.
My own notions of Piety are completely different from that of Socrates. While it is true that not all men who are Just are Pious, one must agree that Justice, in itself, is a form of Piety since it makes things right for a wronged person. Moreover, most of the books of religion also equate Justice and Piety since one is inevitably linked to another (both in modern monotheistic as well as polytheistic religions). Therefore, I completely believe that Piety lies in Virtue and being a good human being, while performing one’s assigned duties (both filial as well as divine). I feel that Euthyphro seems to be closer to the reality as compared to Socrates who views everything through a very abstract viewpoint.
Conclusion
In conclusion, one can understand that the Socratic dialogue of Piety, although interesting, is not without fallacy. Moreover, the outcomes of the dialogue are inherently weak and cannot be applied to most other religious beliefs of Piety, especially given the fact that these beliefs vary widely. But the common points of all these beliefs oppose the Socratic outcome since they don’t concur with the thought that Piety and Justice are divergent. Thus, Euthyphro may be closer to the truth than Socrates as far as this dialogue goes
Reference
Geach, P.T. (1966). Plato’s Euthyphro: An Analysis and Commentary. The Monist, 50.3, 369 – 382. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27901650
Mann, W. (1998). Piety: Lending a Hand to Euthyphro. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Journal.58.1, 123 – 142. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2653633
Plato. (2008). Five Dialogues - Euthyphro. (G.M.A. Grube, Trans). Colorado: University of Colorado Publications. Retrieved from http://philosophyintroduction.weebly.com/uploads/4/4/6/2/44624607/plato_five_dialogue s_second_edition.pdf
