Example Of A Summary Of The Euthyphro Essay

In the Euthyphro, an ancient Socratic dialogue, Socrates, an eminent philosopher meets Euthyphro, a renowned theologian outside King Archon’s court. After exchanging the usual regards, Euthyphro expresses his shock of seeing Socrates at the court. He enquires to know what could have possibly brought the scholar to the court, not expecting to hear that Socrates was the defendant, which surprisingly turns out to be the case. Apparently, Socrates has been summoned to the court after being accused of corrupting the youths in society. Euthyphro does not know how Socrates corrupts the youth. Socrates explains to him that Meletus, a young man whom Socrates describes as wise has accused him of corrupting the youth through his poetry. He explains that, according to the young man, he is creating unique gods and refuting the essence of the old ones. After explaining his presence at the court, Socrates is as well interested in knowing why his friend Euthyphro is at the court. He is surprised that Euthyphro has come to the court to prosecute his own father for allegedly killing a servant who, as Euthyphro, explains, was a poor subject of his.
Socrates is amazed that a person can possibly pursue his own father in a court of law. Euthyphro says that his decision has sparked adverse reactions from his relations who consider the action of suing one’s own father unholy or as they call it, impious. This is where the main idea of the conversation, piety, originates. Socrates seeks to understand what is meant by piety in Euthyphro’s personal view. Socrates hopes that Euthyphro’s interpretation may enable him organize his defense in the case leveled against him by Meletus. To this question Euthyphro explains that holiness is doing that which he is doing- prosecuting an offender, such as a murderer, his relationship notwithstanding. Euthyphro argues that it is holy to persecute a person that commits such evil as murder, whether or not the offender is one’s relative or a mere stranger. Socrates reacts to this by saying that Euthyphro had not given an explanation but rather an example. Apparently, Socrates is interested in knowing that quality that distinguishes the holy from the unholy.
In his second description of piety or holiness, Euthyphro says that it is holy, that which is liked by the gods. To this description, Socrates argues that not all gods hold similar position on a single action. Socrates bases his argument on the fact that the gods do come into conflict and indeed conflict on attitude and conscience. Euthyphro agrees that this is true. Socrates argues that since the gods do clash and even fight because of differences, it means that not all gods would assent to a son prosecuting his own father for unintentionally killing a slave. Socrates also explains that some gods would oppose this idea, especially considering that the murdered person met his death while waiting for the interpreters of the gods to come and advise on his case. Euthyphro sees the logic in Socrates’ argument and decides to amend his description of holiness.
In his third definition, Euthyphro defines holiness as that which is pleasant to all the gods. This modest amendment eliminates the issue of conflict among the gods. At his point, Socrates poses a problem seeking to determine which comes first between an act and a state. Socrates asks Euthyphro to explain to him whether a person is holy because it is liked by the gods or liked by the gods because it is holy. Here, Socrates uses a number of examples. He says, for example, that an object that is referred to as carried because someone is carrying it. It does not have some inherent feature that makes it qualify to be described as carried. Socrates question, also known as Euthyphro’s dilemma, gets Euthyphro to agree that indeed defining holiness is a difficult task since something is said to be holy because the gods love it. He finds it difficult to explain the fundamental quality that makes a person pious.
The fourth explanation is Socrates’ own suggestion. The philosopher recommends that holiness is a category of justice. Socrates, however, finds flaw in his own proposal, in the sense that there must be some specific characteristic that also distinguishes holiness from all other, just acts. In Socrates view, some acts could be just but morally unacceptable. In response to this, Euthyphro argues that, perhaps, piety is the act of caring for or looking after the gods. When Socrates seeks a deeper explanation into this description, Euthyphro finds himself going back to his earlier explanation that something is said to be holy because it is liked by all gods. In his fifth and final interpretation, Euthyphro defines holiness as sacrificing and praying as a way of giving gifts to god. He makes it look like some form of trade by explaining that the gods do favor men in return. Socrates challenges this as some business transactions where one party gives something and gets a favor in return. It thus turns out to be a circular argument where coming to a conclusion is impossible. Euthyphro leaves to attend to other matters clearly, Socrates is not satisfied.