21 pages • 42 minutes read
PlatoEuthyphro
Nonfiction | Essay / Speech | AdultA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Holiness/Piety
In ancient Greece, religion was interwoven with all aspects of personal and civic life. Greek polytheism included belief in a myriad of gods embodying the planets and elements and abstract qualities like justice and wisdom. The government considered belief in the gods to be necessary for the state to function properly, and ordinary citizens looked to the gods for help in their personal lives and believed that they responded to prayers and acts of worship.
The central idea of “Euthyphro” is the search for a definition of holiness. The idea of holiness may also be expressed by the English word “piety,” defined in Merriam Webster’s both as “reverence for God or devout fulfillment of religious obligations” and “dutiful respect or regard for parents, homeland, etc.” Both definitions are relevant to the dialogue. Euthyphro seeks to fulfill his religious duty by punishing a moral wrong, and thus satisfy the gods. However, because the crime was committed by his father, religious piety comes into conflict with filial piety. To complicate matters, the death of the servant was not a straightforward homicide but was partly the result of neglect, and the dead man was himself guilty of murder. Thus, the case turns out to be more complex than Euthyphro thinks at first.
Socrates reacts with great surprise at the news that Euthyphro is prosecuting his own father for homicide. He leads Euthyphro to think the question of holiness through more closely. He is not satisfied with Euthyphro’s initial attempt at a definition, which merely consists of citing the current instance of his prosecuting his father. Socrates instead wants to discover the essential basis of holiness. Euthyphro’s next definition—that holiness is whatever is approved by the gods—is not satisfactory either, because it does not define the rational basis of the approval and ignores the fact that the gods often disagree on ethical matters. The two men agree that holiness is a part of justice, but they get mired down in a discussion of whether the gods benefit from the duties we perform to them. At the end, the two men have not arrived at a settled definition of holiness, but Euthyphro has at least become aware of the parameters of the discussion.
Socrates, meanwhile, is appearing at the same court to defend himself against charges of impiety. Meletus has accused him of corrupting the youth of Athens by making them question traditional religious beliefs. During the dialogue itself, Socrates expresses skepticism about some traditional myths, and particularly the belief that “fearful hostility” and “civil war” exist between the gods. Socrates concludes that this is the principal reason why the impiety charges have been brought against him: “Could this be why I’m defending a prosecution, Euthyphro, that whenever somebody talks like this about the gods, I find it very difficult to accept?” (14).
The Virtue of Justice
In the latter part of the dialogue, Socrates and Euthyphro agree that holiness is related to justice (in Greek, dikaiosyne), a virtue that is defined in Plato’s Republic as “giving what is owed.” Socrates wonders in what way holiness is related to justice. He suggests that “everything holy is just” but “not everything just is holy” (23). In other words, holiness is a part, division, or type of justice—in this case, a type of justice performed to the gods. When Socrates enquires about the exact nature of this form of justice, and how the gods could possibly benefit from our actions, Euthyphro suggests that holiness is a sort of “service” consisting of honors, tokens of esteem, and gratification—not something beneficial as we understand the term.
This discussion of holiness as justice is a bit of a digression, but it serves the purpose of leading the men back to their original track of defining holiness as something approved by the gods. It is also significant in that it relates holiness to another, more all-encompassing virtue, one that figures prominently in Plato’s other writings. By defining holiness as justice done to the gods, Euthyphro and Socrates render it less arbitrary and more rational, relating it to virtues that human beings cultivate among themselves.
More broadly, the theme of justice relates to Euthyphro’s prosecution of his father. Euthyphro believes he is enacting justice by redressing a crime, the killing of the hired worker by his father. But he is not concerned that in his zealousness to render justice to the gods, he might do injustice to his father. In Euthyphro’s view, “one must not let off the perpetrator of impiety whoever he should happen to be” (14). There are two competing claims of justice in Euthyphro’s case. It is clear that for Euthyphro piety to the gods overrides filial piety. He cites the example of Zeus, “the best and most just of the gods” (14), who was not ashamed to imprison his own father for the crime of attempting to destroy his sons. Moreover, as Socrates points out, Euthyphro’s argument is complicated by the nature of the servant’s death (from delay and neglect rather than any deliberate attempt to kill) and the fact that the servant was himself guilty of murder.
The Divine Will
Euthyphro operates on the assumption that human beings can discern the will of the gods and act upon it, and that performing actions pleasing the gods will cause them to bestow their favor. Indeed, Euthyphro states that the social order depends on offering the right kinds of prayers and sacrifices to the gods. Socrates makes Euthyphro examine more closely the question of how far we can know the divine will: “Come, try and show me some clear proof that this action, beyond a doubt, is thought by all gods to be correct. And if you show me to my satisfaction, I shall never stop acclaiming your wisdom” (19).
Socrates points out that the myths portray the gods as quarreling among themselves about questions of right and wrong. Thus, it is hard to discern which actions are divinely approved and which are not. Moreover, to define the holy simply as whatever the gods approve does not get at the essence of what holiness is. As Socrates phrases the question—“Is the holy approved by the gods because it’s holy, or is it holy because it’s approved?”—Proponents of Divine Command Theory, of which Euthyphro would seem to be one, would argue that an action is good because God commands it. Socrates would respond that this account makes God’s judgment arbitrary and without rational basis.
In all these ways, Plato’s dialogue suggests that judicial claims based solely on the divine will are dubious; this may also include Socrates’s indictment for impiety.
Related Titles
By Plato
