Euthyphro and Socrates

5 Pages 1366 Words

Socrates’ Opposition of Euthyphro’s First and Third Suggestion


Euthyphro’s first and third suggestion on the form of piety poses a problem for Socrates. A form is something that distinguishes one thing from another; piousness just like anything else has a form. In Socrates’ debate with Euthyphro, he looks for the form of piety, something that can separate pious from impious actions. Socrates is a Natural Law Theorist, laws regarding what is and what is ought to be; he wants some feature of piety that will allow him to pick out pious acts, that is not shared by impious acts, and that makes the action in question pious. Euthyphro has difficulty defining what is pious and what is not because, as it becomes clear from the whole discussion with Socrates, he does not have a clear idea of what it is himself, although he claims to do so.
In his first suggestion on the nature of piety, he presents the case of a certain group of individuals, particularly lawmen, to which he also belongs. For them, Euthyphro claims, it would be pious, or holy, to prosecute “wrongdoers or those guilty of any other offense…be they one’s father or mother or anyone else whatever” (Ethics 7-8). On the other hand, it would be impious, or unholy, to hold back because of reservations brought on by ties of relations or friendship. Socrates does not dispute Euthyphro’s duty to do so, but points out to the latter that his suggestion is no more than an example of a pious action, and not very clear one as well. Euthyphro’s example of what is pious does not give a basis for future interpretation of what piousness is. It deviates from the form of this term, and doesn’t explain how to distinguish it for the future. For example if someone asks you what is ice cream, and as a response you say it is something that is liked by many people, you are not defining ice cream. Many people like many things, for example many people like pizza. How ...