Socrates - Definitions of Piety Essay

Socrates uses a cause and effect method throughout the argument. As Socrate is asking Euthyphro to approve along the way down his points he gets certainly confused. Ending their argument with a point that, piety and what is pleasing to the gods are simply not the same. By the end of the argument Euthyphro is contradicted and can no longer identify what he thinks. Socrates makes a point of the difference of a fact and an opinion. The definition of a moral quality is not a matter of what people think. You cannot determine what goodness, or piety is by asking people around you. Consequently, whether something or someone has a given moral quality is also not a matter of their opinion. Whether an act or a person is good, or pious, for example, is not to be settled by a

When Socrates asked Euthyphro what the meaning of piety is, Euthyphro tells him that, “piety is what the gods love.”(Shafer-Landau 57). This answer leads Socrates into asking, “are acts pious because the gods love them, or do the gods love actions because they are pious?”(Shafer-Landau 57). The issue at hand is Socrates is merely trying to determine exactly what determines if acts are pious or not pious and if there is any relation to the gods. Socrates question is important because if the gods aren’t what determines if acts are pious or not, then there would be no proof as to what is pious and what isn’t. This would mean that each person would have their own justification as to what is right or wrong.

Socrates accurately contests that this definition does not provide the true nature of piety or why pious acts are in fact considered pious. By challenging Euthyphro’s perception of piety, Socrates attempts to obtain an objectivist definition of what it truly means to be pious. Socrates’ queries provide powerful support for the notion that one’s judgements regarding value is a response to objectively existing values. That is, the pious leads the gods to love it or the morally just leads one to approve it. However, perhaps the reason the dialogue draws to an aporetic conclusion, is the fact that piety may not be defined objectively. Pious acts may be considered immeasurable as they are based upon subjective individual values. Thus, the meaning of piety can differ as a result of one’s individual views and values. As one’s definition of piety may contradict another’s, acts may be regarded as both pious and impious simultaneously. Additionally, one’s own definition of what is considered pious may shift overtime, due to experience or greater understanding of a situation resulting in further discord between piety and impiety. However, whilst this Socratic dialogue does not result in a concise definition of what it means to be pious, it does indirectly enhance one’s understanding of piety by encouraging one to evaluate what the pious is

According to Euthyphro, piety is whatever the gods love, and the impious whatever the gods hate. At first this seems like a good definition of piety, however, further inquiry from Socrates showed that the gods have different perspectives vis a vis certain actions. As the gods often quarrel with another, piety cannot simply be what is loved by gods, since they differ in opinions. For, if the gods agreed on what is just, surely they would not constantly fight with one another. Therefore, the first proposition of Euthyphro is wanting. Socrates, thus, is teaching a particular style of inquiry whereby, facile statements are challenged by their own propositions. Socrates does not make any claims initially, but rather questions the logical consequence of Euthyphro’s answer.

The main question of this dialogue is the definition of the word holy or piety. Euthyphro brags that he is more knowledgeable than his father on matters relating to religion. In this case, Socrates suggests to Euthyphro to define that term. The first definition fails to satisfy Socrates because of its limitation in application. Apparently, Socrates perceives this definition as an example rather than a definition. Subsequent arguments and line of questioning lead to five sets of definitions that are refined to find the general definition. Socrates expects that the acceptable general definition of the question will act as a reference point in his defense.

As Euthyphro is essentially a self-righteous man, he asserts that piety is to do as he is doing, "that is to say, prosecuting any one who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of similar crime whether he be your father or mother, or whoever he may be that makes no difference; and not to prosecute them is impiety" (Plato, 5e). Euthyphro's definition of piety contains many implications, the biggest of which is that Euthyphro considers himself to be a good example of piety in action.

In this interaction, Socrates considers Euthyphro to help in explaining all there is to be known about piety and the related impiety. Euthyphro confirms that he is indeed an expert in the matter relating to religious issues and can thus assist Socrates in the charges that face him. In their argument in the efforts to define the true meaning of piety, Socrates and Euthyphro engage in the analysis of issues that threaten to confuse human understanding about the whole issue of holiness and impiety in the society, (Plato & Gallop, 2008). To understand the true meaning of piety, it is of great importance to take a holistic analysis of the beliefs of the people about

Studying the fourth relationship, Socrates and Euthyphro go into detail on how the came up with this interpretation, all just actions are pious. Using the same example, charity, works for this relationship because it is a just and a pious action at the same time. There are multiple ways to determine why this relationship can be incorrect. Holding the door open for a stranger is a just action, but is not pious. Therefore, holding the door open for a stranger is not just, which does not make sense. There is also another more significant reason on why the fourth relationship will not work. The fourth relationship allows there to be pious actions that can be unjust. For instance, killing innocent children because “the gods” intend this to happen does not make this relationship true. If you have a pious action that allows unjust actions, then there is no justice. Towards the end of 8-d, Socrates asked, “Do not all the gods have the same experience, if indeed they are at odds with each other about the just and the unjust, as your argument maintains? Some assert that they wrong one another, while others deny it, but no one among gods or men ventures to say that the wrongdoer

They have both related to society in ways that have angered others and led both of them to court. They are at court for different events but the reason in both cases is piety. Concerning the case against Socrates, “… [Meletus] says I am a maker of gods, and because I make novel gods and do not acknowledge the old ones, he indicts me for their sake, he says” (3b). Euthyphro says that his relatives are angry with him for prosecuting his own father and that it is impious of him to do so, yet he does not relent and says, “… they say,it is unholy for a son to prosecute his father for murder, not really knowing, Socrates, how the religious law stands with respect to holiness and unholiness.”

Euthyphro intends his definition of piety. If right actions are pious only because the gods love them, then moral rightness is completely

In my view, holiness refers to the state of being good to all. It involves practicing the universal ideas of good, such as, kindness and respect. Socrates would respond by questioning what the universal ideas of good are. In that respect, he would probably argue that different societies have different perceptions of good. For example,

In Euthyphro, Socrates is on his way to his trial for impiety when he runs into Euthyphro. Euthyphro is on his way to trial as well, but he is the prosecutor in his trial. He is trying his own father for the murder of a servant. Socrates asks him to teach him about what is holy so that he might be able to defend himself better. Socrates asks Euthyphro to teach him, but as you read you

The notion that each of the multiple gods can set their standards for morality, allows for the follower to circumstantially pick and choose which god to follow. It is possible for a follower to be circumstantially selective because they do not have to answer to one specific god. One can choose to follow a certain god because that particular god’s set of morals allows them to fulfill some desire or need that would otherwise not fulfilled under other

If it were the exact definition, only Euthyphro would be pious. He said that Euthyphro did not understand the difference between a definition and an example. Next, Euthyphro says that piety is found in things that are dear to the gods (7a). Socrates again rejected Euthyphro’s definition of piety. The Greek gods were anthropomorphic; therefore, another may despise what would be dear to one god. This definition offered was not distinct. Finally, Euthyphro said that what is pious is what loved by the gods (9e). However, Euthyphro can’t answer whether something is pious because it is loved or it is loved because it is pious. He can’t conceive the difference between cause and effect. It is in the Euthyphro that Socrates begins his defense of his actions and principles to the reader. A priest can’t give him a concise answer as to what is religious; therefore, how can anyone else, especially one less religiously guided than a priest, accuse him of blasphemous actions?

In examining the relationship between religion and morality, there are many equally important topics that should be considered. One topic, nonetheless, that I think is essential in beginning to discuss the philosophy of morality in the context of religion is that which is concerned with whether religion has a significant role in the definition of morality. Religion does have a significant role in the defining and understanding of morality, and this is important for ethics. The aim of this paper is not to argue whether it is possible for one to be moral without being religious, for this I assume is more or less evidently possible, but rather whether a general concept of religion and God is needed in the proper interpretation of morality. I will refer to Plato’s Euthyphro and its focus on piety and the dilemma it generates, in guiding this discussion.