The concept of holiness in the dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates emerges when Socrates insists that Euthyphro ought to have been perfectly informed of what is pious and what is impious prior to filing a murder charge against his own father. Socrates presence at the porch of the King Archon had been occasioned by a case of impiety brought against him by Meletus. The concept of holiness takes a prominent position in the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro because Socrates wanted to learn of what is pious and what is impious so that he could defend himself in case. Euthyphro was considered by judges and others in authority an impeachable authority.
Socrates enquired from Euthyphro what piety and impiety were. The first of Euthyphro’s responses was that piety is “doing as I do, prosecuting your father (if he is guilty) on a murder charge; doing as the gods do- as Zeus did to Cronos and Cronos to Uranus.” (Plato, 1999). Socrates had a dislike for mythological tales and he instantly refuted Euthyphro’s definition of piety. He thought that he was charged with impiety because of his hatred for the mythological gods. Socrates questioned whether he (Euthyphro) would consider a single instance of piety (charging a father with murder) to be the general definition of piety.
Dissatisfied with the first definition of what Piety was, Socrates asked Euthyphro to give him another definition. This time Euthyphro said that, “Piety is what is dear to the gods and the impiety is what is not dear to them.” (Plato, 1999) Socrates was not satisfied with this response. He refuted it by stating that the differences of opinion (especially about good and evil) that exist among men may also be present among gods. Differences of opinion present among men and gods lead them to have lesser issues in which they can universally agree to hold as dear to them or otherwise. In other words, Socrates insisted that what may be dear to one god may not be dear to another and as such one action qualifies to be both pious and impious. He cited that the action Euthyphro was planning to take on his own father would be dear to Zeus (who also prosecuted his father) but the same action would displease Cronos or Uranus (who were subjected to suffering by their sons).
Dissatisfied with the initial responses and in an effort to gain an answer to his query, Socrates probed Euthyphro further, “What part of justice is piety?” Euthyphro’s third definition of piety stated that piety was that part of justice which ‘attends’ to the gods as there is that part of justice which ‘attends’ to men. Socrates was dissatisfied with this response and sought the meaning of ‘attending’ to the gods. He contended that when ‘attend’ is used in the context of someone attending to horses, dogs and men it brought about improvement and benefits to that which had been ‘attended’. Socrates sought how ‘attention’ to the gods through holy or pious acts would make the gods any better. Though Euthyphro explained that ‘attention’ to the gods meant some sort of ministration through the said pious acts, Socrates questioned the benefits that gods derive from ministrations through pious acts by men. Seeing that Socrates was questioning his definitions further, Euthyphro said that the questions Socrates raised could not be answered in a short time. Euthyphro finally told Socrates that Piety “Is knowing how to please the gods in word and deed, by prayers and sacrifices” (Plato, 1999).
In this discussion on what is piety, Socrates wanted Euthyphro to contend that there is no absolute definition of what is pious and what is not pious. In the first instance when Euthyphro insisted that piety was doing as he (Euthyphro was doing-charging his own father for murder), Socrates refuted that saying that a single instance was not enough to give a general definition on piety. In the second instance, when Euthyphro insisted that what was pious was that which was dear to all gods and vice versa, Socrates refuted this saying that even gods had differences of opinion and no single act could be considered as absolutely dear or not to them. In the third instance when Euthyphro said that piety was attending to the gods, Socrates asserted that ‘attention’ to any being brought it improvement and benefits. He therefore questioned the benefits that the gods would derive from ‘attention’ through ministrations or pious acts. Socrates compelled Euthyphro to contend that, “piety is a science of asking and givinga mode of doing business between men and gods” (Plato, 2009). Socrates was highly argumentative man who argued everything philosophically to justify his actions and seek advice when in a dilemma (Navia, 2007). This discussion shows that Socrates wanted to show that there was no absolute definition of piety and as such he hoped that he could successfully defend himself in court by justifying the actions for which he had been accused of as impious.
In my view, piety can be defined as the totality of actions that exalt a deity or a god. Socrates could refute this definition by asking for the qualification of exalt in this context since the word can mean several things such as raise the rank of a person, praise or even intensify emotions. In this case Socrates might question the definite acts that raise, praise or intensify emotions or the ones that achieve the reverse of exaltation. If indeed piety was exaltation of deities (gods) there would be a difference of opinion among gods on the acts that deserve to exalting gods and those that do not. Just like in the case of what is dear to the gods and what is not dear to them, Socrates would assert that gods have differences of opinion thereby deeming no single act either out rightly pious or impious.
References
Navia, L. (2007). Socrates, a life examined. (2007). Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books.
Plato (2009). Five great dialogues of Plato. Claremont, CA: Coyote Canyon Press.
Plato (1999) Euthyphro. Translator: Benjamin Jowett. Posting Date: November 23, 2008 [EBook #1642] Release Date: February, 1999. Produced by Sue Asscher
