Plato’s Euthyphro Essay Example

Plato’s Euthyphro Essay In this platonic dialogue featuring Socrates and Euthyphro, the two engage in a discussion about the essence of piety and the pious. The scene is the porch of king Archon. Both of them are seeking the attention of the king in cases that are of concern to each of them. It is here that Socrates seeks to learn from Euthyphro the nature of piety because Euthyphro professes great knowledge on the subject. Following Socrates characteristic enquiry, Euthyphro comes up with several definitions, which are discussed in this article together with Socrates responses to them.The first definitionAfter Socrates rejects his very first attempt to discover the essence of the pious by the pointing out that he did not ask for a few examples of piety, Euthyphro gives the first definition that piety is what is dear to the gods and impiety what is not dear to them. Taking an earlier assertion by Euthyphro that gods indeed do have dire quarrels, battles and fights, Socrates begins to enquire into the depth of the definition given.Socrates argues that since gods fight and quarrel, then they must do that because of differences in values, beliefs and most importantly because of differences in opinion about what is just and unjust, what is good and evil, what is honorable and what is not. Similarly one act could be considered good to one god and evil to another. That some act could be agreeable to Zeus but not agreeable to Cronos or Uranus. Euthyphro then suggested that surely all the gods would agree on the propriety of punishing a murderer.   Socrates counters this by arguing that even men dare not dispute that a doer of injustice should go unpunished, rather they deny that such a wrong has been done. The gods would do the same and deny that injustice is done among them while others say it is done. It would follow from the argument that what is pious and holy to some gods could be impious and evil to others. A question arises; how do you know for sure that your presumed pious acts are not agreeable to some gods but hateful to the rest? This cannot be and so the definition is rejected.After then Euthyphro amends his definition and say that Pious and holy is what all gods, love and impious what all gods hate. In the same manner as above Socrates refutes this definition by arguing that the gods love piety because it is holy and not holy because the gods love it. Consequently the definition that pious is what all gods love does not satisfy define piety but is just an attribute. In simple terms, what Socrates is saying is that Pious is loved by Gods because it is a kind to be loved and is not pious because its loved by the gods. It is not possible therefore to say that the gods love pious because of the quality in it that is lovable and then say that pious because its loved. That does not add up.The second definitionEuthyphro gives the second definition of piety as the part of justice that attends to the gods. After some guidance from Socrates, he amends this to â₠¬Ëœthe act of attending to the gods.’ Socrates then enquires as to the nature of the attention given. He contends that attention is always designed to benefit that to which the attention is given. Below are some excerpts that give direction to their conversation.Soc. And is not attention always designed for the good or benefit of that to which the attention is given? As in the case of horses, you may observe that when attended to by the horsemans art they are benefited and improved, are they not?Euth. True.Soc. As the dogs are benefited by the huntsmans art, and the oxen by the art of the ox herd, and all other things are tended or attended for their good and not for their hurt?Euth. Certainly, not for their hurt.Soc. But for their good?Euth. Of course.Soc. And does piety or holiness, which has been defined to be the art of attending to the gods, benefit or improve them? Would you say that when you do a holy act you make any of the gods better?Euth. No, no; that was certainly not what I meant.Jowett, B. Euthyphro by Plato (1999).Since no benefits seem to accrue from the attention given to the gods by men, Euthyphro attempts to clarify the kind of attention he means by adding that it is such as servants show their masters-a kind of ministration. Socrates still finds fault with this and asks what work such kind of ministration helps to accomplish. He reckons that all art ministers to a person only with the view of accomplishing a particular purpose. Euthyphro can hardly answer the question that follows. Socrates asks what is accomplished by the gods following our ministration.At this point Socrates argues that Piety cannot be the art of attending to the god since there are no apparent benefits accruing from this attention.The third definitionHaving been unable to defend the second definition Euthyphro quickly comes up with the third definition that states that piety or holiness is learning how to please gods in word and deed by prayers and sacrifices. Thi s third definition still comes under Socrates scrutiny who points out that sacrifice is giving to the gods while praying is asking and thus piety by Euthyphro’s definition is the science of giving and asking. After looking at this definition it follows that we ask what is good (what we think is good for us) from the gods. And we then give what is beneficial to them (What is good to them). However, Euthyphro quickly points out that the gods do not need anything from us. Socrates observes that, if that is this case then our giving and sacrifices are of no benefit to the gods, Euthyphro answers that on the contrary our sacrifices and services are dear to the gods. This takes them back to where they started that piety is what is dear to gods.In conclusion Socrates refutes the three definitions given by Euthyphro. The first one because Pious is loved by the gods because of the quality in it and not pious because it is loved by the gods. It can only be one not both. The second defi nition is not admissible because the attention given to the gods brings no benefits to the gods. This makes no sense. The third definition too is refuted since the sacrificing or giving seems to be without any benefit to the gods and if it does then it takes us back to the beginning.ReferencesJowett, B.(1999). Euthyphro by Plato. Available on line athttp://classics.mit.edu//Plato/euthyfro.html