Socrates and Euthyphro struck a conversation on the definition which later moved to the concept of holiness and piety when they meet in a courthouse. In the courthouse, Euthyphro was set to prosecute his father, Socrates, for manslaughter. Socrates probably wanted to use the definition of piety obtained from the dialogue to defend against the charges of impropriety leveled against him.
Socrates refutes this definition since it does not explain the basic characteristics that can make it to be used to gauge when things are pious or not or what makes pious things to be said they are pious. Accordingly, the definition offered definition cannot serve since it offers only one of an example of piety. It lacks the general concept that can be applied in other different situations. The question that perhaps we need to ask is whether a definition could be complete without an example (Allen, 1970).
In his second definition, Euthyphro defines piety as all what pleases the gods. In this case, he did not explain how one comes to know what is loved by gods and what they hate. Socrates first applauds the definition as it is more general than the first one. He however criticizes it by seeking to know whether if the god agree on what is good or not. Euthyphro realized the contradiction in his definition and proceeded to amend it (Allen, 1970).
In his third definition, Euthyphro amended the second and developed it to be what all the gods love, and what they all hate is impious. The question arising from this was whether holy is what is loved by god or it is holy if it is loved by gods. He used and analogy of something which is been carried is said to be carried simply because it in the state of being carried. It does not have any other characteristics that qualify it to be said it is being carried. Therefore, if piety is defined as “what all gods’ love” it is so because of some reason that was, before being loved. Therefore piety comes first before a thing is loved/liked due to some underlying basic characteristics. This is the reverse of the Euthyphro’s definition that, something has to be loved/liked by the gods so as to be pious. Therefore his definition was flawed according to Socrates (Gallop, 1997).
Socrates goal
Socrates goal was to disarm Euthyphro and deal a blow to the confidence and moral backings which he would have used to prosecute him. Socrates wanted to ensure that the definition of holiness held by Euthyphro was put into disrepute and consequently could not be used as a basis of reason to charge him (Allen, 1970).
This is evident because Socrates could not agree on the first definition which clearly indicated the actual basis on which Euthyphro intended to base his arguments to prosecute him i.e. prosecuting a wrong doer regard less of the relationship between the prosecutor and the accused. He indented to proof to Euthyphro that piety does not necessarily come simply by obeying any particular being an therefore such a being do not necessarily determine what is to be holy or not.
One of the reasons which indicate that this was the goal of Socrates includes the location of the conversation which took place in the courthouse. Another indication that this was his goal was that he was in the courthouse to be prosecuted for impiety, with Euthyphro as the prosecutor. Another clear indication of Socrates goal is the drift in the conversation from the initial meeting, such that instead of a prosecution, a debate about the definition of piety ensued (Gallop, 1997).
My definition
My definition of piety/holiness would be that, holiness is all what is considered good in line with the laws of god and nature that characterizes the basic components of the thing.
Socrates would criticize this definition and claim the following and ask whether the consideration of ‘goodness’ in itself makes something pious and what criteria shall be used to determine the goodness. He would also wonder how the laws of god shall be applied on what principles since there is no any universal agreement on what constitutes laws of the gods.
References
Cumming, R. D. (1956). Introduction to Plato, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Gallop, D. (1997). Introduction to Plato, Defense of Socrates, Euthyphro, Crito, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Plato, The Dialogues of Plato, translated by J. Harward, Robert Maynard Hutchins (1952), ed., vol. 7 of Great Books of the Western World (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.), 195.
Allen, R. E. (1970). Plato's "Euthyphro" and the Earlier Theory of Forms. London. Oxford University Press.
