Plato’s “Euthyphro”
Plato’s “Euthyphro”.What is the book about? Who are the main characters?What are the main ethical dilemmas discussed? What is Socrates trying to say? What did you personally learn, if anything, from the book? Why do you think this book can be relevant today? ? You should make references to pages of the given book only. No need to mention the author or the title. Simply p. # in the text.
ANSWER
Plato’s “Euthyphro”
Euthyphro is a Socratic dialogue authored by Plato and occurs before Socrates’s court trial (2a). It involves discussions on ethics between Socrates and Euthyphro, where they also discuss the nature of piety. Piety refers to strong religious beliefs, which places the dialogue’s primary discussion topics to be ethics, holiness, and justice. The main characters in the book are Socrates and Euthyphro. Socrates is the protagonist in the book with a basic and straightforward conversational knowledge, while Euthyphro is described as the expert in ethics and religious matters, as a godly man. In the book, Euthyphro seemed to be an expert in religious or piety matters, where he had brought his father to the court, Socrates, with a murder charge (4a). The dialogue between father and son thus revolves around the definition of righteousness. According to the Greeks, murder was a religious crime. Socrates was also astonished by Euthyphro’s confidence in prosecuting his father and family on severe charges of manslaughter or murder on behalf of the victim or victim’s family since the victim was dead. Hence, Socrates flatters or finds his son Euthyphro an expert in the matter to how he is willing to prosecute his father.
In the book, when explaining the meaning of holiness, Euthyphro explains that holiness involves religious offenders’ persecution, which makes Socrates a religious offender (5d-6a). From that definition, holiness thus means doing what Euthyphro was doing. He further explains to Socrates that things that can be called and suggested as holy are agreeable and pleasing among gods (6e). Socrates disagrees with these two definitions claiming that the first was an example of piety and not a definition. In the second definition, Socrates disagrees, stating the possible battles and internal feuds among the gods on agreed aspects, making things that are agreeable to some not agreeable to others; thus, an action can be pious and impious. Finally, Euthyphro provides the third definition of piety, stating that gods approve, love, and agree with all that is pious and hate, disagree, and disapprove of all impiousness (9e). The argument on the definition of holiness between Socrates and Euthyphro presents an ethical dilemma of the Euthyphro book; “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or it is pious because it is loved?” (10a). In other words, “Are good actions loved, approved, and agreeable among gods because they are good, or good actions are good because they are loved, approved, and agreeable among gods?”
The book’s argument and dialogue remain inconclusive on the universal or agreed definition of piety between the two main characters. However, in Socrates’ perspective, even though he acts as the student while Euthyphro is depicted as the teacher and expert, when Socrates keeps disagreeing, it enables Euthyphro to learn and analyze his arguments. Socrates conflicts with the definitions given that holiness is what gods approve and agree, and loves, terming them insufficient, showing that the correlation is relatively weak and dissimilar. For instance, Socrates states that agreeable things to some may not be agreeable to others; thus, an action can be both pious and impious. This can be translated in that if actions are approved, loved, and agreeable among gods as holy, it does not necessarily mean that the approval, love, and consensus makes the action holy. Secondly, if actions are holy because the gods approved, agreed, and loved it to be so, it does not explain the reasons and purposes the approval, love, and consensus were based upon.
Socrates’ main question on (10a) presents a lesson learned and take away from this book. Morality and ethics vary among people bringing about relativism, which results in something being pious and impious at the same time. The presence of ideological, personal, and cultural beliefs differences among people presents ethical and moral relativism possibilities. An action may be termed as ethically acceptable among People X because their religious beliefs and teachings say so. Still, in People Y, the same action is prohibited and termed taboo based on Y’s cultural and religious teachings. The book’s central argument revolves around holiness (piety), religiousness, and justice, showing that these aspects are relative among different people. For instance, long ago, slavery was morally acceptable among Americans; however, among slavery groups, this was impious, wrong, and ethically wrong. This example shows that an action (slavery) can be impious and pious at the same time, so people will always do things that they believe are good and leave out those that they think are wrong, even though they could be relatively expressed.
The book is relevant in modern society that is ruled by ‘designed’ morality in various ways. It teaches that morality, piety, and justice are relative, and people will conduct actions that they believe to be good even though others perceive them wrong. Hence, in a society where we experience morality be design, designed by corporations and potent actors, virtues, piety, religiousness, and justice should be practiced and fulfilled by an individual as a duty to their gods and humanity.
