Sydney K Pobee
In this dialog, Euthyphro sends his father to trial for murdering one of his day workers. Socrates is amazed at Euthyphro’s decision of sending his father to trial. Socrates assumes the deceased might have been family to have influenced Euthyphro’s decision.
Euthyphro defends himself by saying that it would be comical alone to think that it would make a difference whether or not the deceased was family or not, it would be justified as to be let off if family but prosecuted if opposite.
Socrates question Euthyphro’s logic regarding know things stands between the divine law, piety, and impiety. Socrates was interested to know how Euthyphro came to the definition of what is pious and impious because this it would be a great benefit to Socrates to use Euthyphro examples for his trial.
After fully claiming to know what piety and impiety were, Euthyphro says reverence is what he is doing, prosecuting the murder whether or father or anyone guilty and what is hated by the gods is not prosecuting the is impious.
According to Socrates, Euthyphro had not come close to convincing or taught him what piety and impiety is, meaning Euthyphro sending his father to trial very much did not justify what is hateful to the gods and proved dear to the gods. Socrates also points out that if the gods disagree on what is pious and impious the how can Euthyphro certainly know if prosecuting his father is unjust? Socrates asks him to strictly explained piety as he claims to know.
Euthyphro indeed claimed that piety is what all the gods love and what the opposite is proving what all the gods hate is impious.
Socrates examines, Euthyphro’s second definition of what piety and impiety are, Socrates starts off by asking if the gods love piety just because it is pious or is it pious because the gods love it? Nevertheless, if what is dear to the gods and piety were the same. What may seem pleasing to the gods is not pious because the gods love piety because it is pious, and that is not pious because they love it. What is also pleasing to the gods because they love it, is pleasing to the gods in the same respect.
If the gods were to love piety because it was pious, then there would be no doubt to think, what is pleasing to the gods because it is pleasing to them. For what is dear to the gods is set to be loved because it is love, while what is holy to is sort to be loved; therefore, it is loved.
Euthyphro tries to put into better terms that, ministering to the gods is pious which is holy and what lies between piety is about ministering to men.
Socrates accepts Euthyphro’s definition but also refutes it by saying he lacks the meaning of “ministering.” Euthyphro and Socrates agreed that not everyone knows how to minister to horses, but only horse-trainers. Socrates says that taking care of something only becomes beneficial under one’s attention just like how horses benefit and improve when ministered by horse-training.
According to Euthyphro, ministry to the god is holiness because it is a kind of service to them. Socrates quickly sums up the services that the physician, ship-builders, and house-builders produce.
After failing to sum up the services that the gods produce, Euthyphro tells Socrates how difficult it is to certainty know how things stand between divine law, piety, and impiety. Nevertheless, things like prayer and sacrifice to the gods are holy, and they keep the families and cities safe. Euthyphro says the opposite of what is acceptable to the gods is impious.
tatiana-dople. “Indiana University, Early Chinese Thought B/E/P374 Fall 2010 (R.Eno) PDF Document.” DocSlides, 2010, www.docslides.com/tatiana-dople/indiana-university-early-chinese-thought-b-e-p374-fall-20-573.