Socrates and Euthyphro - Essay Example

Socrates and Euthyphro In the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, we are met with the ‘Euthyphro dilemma’ that asks, “Is the pious loved by the Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the Gods?” (Cahn, 23-25). In simpler terms it means that, is morally good really loved by the Gods for being morally good, or do we term a certain attribute to be morally good because it has been said so by the Gods. Since Plato posed this question in this dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, it has been the central theme of many theological and philosophical debates and discussions over the centuries.

As Socrates and Euthyphro argue over the definition of piety, we will examine them to find out as to what facts are relevant in this dialogue of Euthyphro. Euthyphro, a priest comes to the court to prosecute his own father, on charges of killing the former’s servant. In this context Socrates (who is in the court because he has been accused of impiety) wanted to find out as to what is really meant by the term piety (or morally good), since Euthyphro, by his own version, is doing an act of piety by defying all conventions and prosecuting his own kin, his father.

So Socrates starts by asking Euthyphro the definition of piety, to which Euthyphro says his very act of coming to the court to prosecute his father in order to fight for justice, is piety (first definition). However, Socrates disagrees and tells him, that the act is certainly pious, but does not define the term piety. To explain this in simpler terms we can say take any sentence as an example. When asked to define the term ‘bread’, the sentence ‘this basket contains bread’, may be a correct statement, but certainly does not define the term ‘bread’.

Realizing his mistake Euthyphro then comes forward with the second definition, where he says piety is an act loved by the gods. Here again Socrates intervenes, and tells him that there may be instances where the Gods may disagree amongst themselves. Then the act cannot be pious, since there is no clear consensus between the Gods. The third definition that Euthyphro then puts forward is that acts of piety are loved by all the Gods. After this definition, Socrates puts forward the question “Is what youre doing pious because it is loved by the gods, or do the gods love what youre doing because what youre doing is pious?

”(Cahn, ibid). Here lies the dilemma, that is, if we accept certain act to be pious just because God commanded them to be so, then the distinction between good and bad becomes the sole prerogative of the Gods. Since there is no clear reason as to why Gods should only favor justice; it might be that they favor the opposite act of justice, like murder, too. In that case impiety and injustice would also become morally good. Here Socrates is trying to say that, if a person follows morality, strictly adhering to the moral rules supposedly defined by the Gods, then he is being immature, like a child who follows rules without asking for reasons behind these imposed regulations.

Thus, we find that the moral rules or ethics that undoubtedly bring about happiness and justice stand quite apart, from Gods’ commands, and it is to these distinctly separate morality rules that the Gods must also conform. Since we can see that acts of justice and piety brings about general happiness we do not need God’s attestation to declare them as morally correct. So a pious act can be said to be an act or morality, and such acts solely aim to bring about happiness, and it is also God’s will that all humans achieve happiness and contentment in their lives.

So our basic theory that we should do good because it is as the Gods command, is not correct, instead we should choose to do acts that bring about happiness and a sense of fulfillment. Thus Socrates separates the act of piety from its divine sphere, and places it on its own within the very grasps of human realms, a blasphemous thought indeed for the theists of all ages. Euthyphro defines murder as an act of impiety, and that “murder and stealing from the temples warrant prosecution. and not prosecuting is impious” (Vaught, 108).

Here Euthyphro thus sets himself as an example of piety (he gives an example of Zeus in a similar situation who had imprisoned his own father), and judges the actions of his father in relation to that. Works CitedCahn, S. Classics of Western Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2002. Print.Vaught, C. The Quest for Wholeness. Albany: SUNY Press, 1982. Print.