In this particular dialogue, it is between Euthyphro and our usual Socrates; and although this dialogue is rather short and simple, it still has us contemplating deeply. Socrates catches Euthyphro on his way to depose murder charges against his own father out of piety! Socrates, being the curious philosopher that he his, takes great interest in Euthyphro’s understanding of piety because he is being indicted by a young man named Menetus who claims that Socrates is acting impious and corrupting the youth. If Euthyphro truly understands piety, then Socrates could use the ideas of Euthyphro to defend himself.
Unfortunately, as we find throughout the dialogue, Euthyphro doesn’t really know what it means to be pious or impious. Similarly to Meno in another dialogue, he gives examples of piety, but doesn’t give the essence of it. He just claims to know it and that it’s difficult to explain, but no matter how much Socrates pushes, he never actually explains it. He never admits that he doesn’t actually know!
I think Euthyphro is most likely acting out of dishonesty. I think he’s acting under the guise of piety because he has something against his father. It’s weird that someone is so comfortable testifying against their own father, especially since his father only murdered someone who was a murderer anyway. For Euthyphro to not testify against his own father would actually make more sense, and weird to testify against his father.
Of course if someone does something bad, even if they’re your own parents, it’s important to do what’s right. Bad people deserve to be punished. But if they’re your own parents, and your parents did something bad out of what a kind of justice, then I would probably hesitate or at least be uncomfortable about testifying.
In the last dialogue where I reviewed the dialogue between Socrates and Meno, both of them were trying to figure out what virtue was; and in particular, the idea of whether or not virtue could be discovered or understood. In my response, I said that virtue could be understood and is well within our grasp. In this dialogue; however, I think the concepts of “pious” and “impious” are not able to be understood; and this dialogue shows that they cannot be grasped.
The first real definition of piety that Euthyphro gives to Socrates is that the pious is what is loved by the gods. Socrates sees this as a problem though because gods disagree about different things. What one god might think is pious another would think is impious. I think this is what is most revealing. If the gods do exist, how does someone know what they think? And if they do know what they think, what happens when they disagree? Piety seems to be a contradictory concept, a concept that is made up. I’m not trying to be a boring, uncharitable atheist, but what use is a concept if there is nothing in reality to arise to it? It’s very easy for someone to call something pious, or in other words moral and absolutely correct, without even having to explain how. Which again, I think that’s why Euthyphro harbors negative feelings towards his father because he’s trying to use concepts of piety and impiety to do something questionable or even evil.
Euthyphro tries to get around this by saying that all the gods would agree that murder is bad. Of course Socrates presses further asking about what the gods would think of the details of the murder. How was the murder committed? Why was the murder committed? What if the murder was justified? With all of these specified answers to these questions, it’s likely the gods wouldn’t agree given the answers to these questions. Even if the gods all agreed, there’s another aspect to this issue that Socrates points out: Is something pious because the gods love it or because it is pious that the gods love it? And there’s this rather funny and complicated answer that Socrates gives when Euthyphro doesn’t understand:
It is not being seen because it is a thing seen but on the contrary it is a thing seen because it is being seen because it is being seen; nor is it because it is something led that it is being led but because it is being led that it is something led; nor is something being carried because it is something carried, but it is something carried because it is being carried. Is what I want to say clear, Euthyphro? I want to say this, namely, that if anything is being changed or is being affected in any way, it is not being changed because it is something changed, but rather it is something changed because it is being changed; nor is it being affected because it is something affected, but it is something affected because it is being affected. Or do you not agree?
Socrates talking to Euthyphro
In other words, Euthyphro didn’t actually explain what piety is. Regardless if something pious becomes pious because it is loved by the gods, or that what is loved by the gods becomes pious does not actually explain what piety is. If something becomes pious because the gods love it, why would the gods love it? What is that special thing? Or, what is it about piety that attracts the gods’ love? In the end, a quality of piety is that it is loved by the gods, but it’s not what piety is itself.
Socrates tries to answer by thinking that all pious actions are a form of justice, but not all just actions are a form of piety. So it’s a matter of looking at just actions and figuring out which of them is pious. Euthyphro makes the same mistake of assuming the pious is what the gods love. Socrates tries to push more, but Euthyphro makes an excuse to leave the conversation because it’s clear he doesn’t know the answer. Of course Euthyphro would do this because to admit that he’s testifying against his father out of piety and not really understanding piety would be too much to handle! With the dialogue cut short, we’re not left with a satisfying answer from Plato.
I think the answer is clear, at least to me. “Pious” and “impious” are false concepts because gods are false concepts. There is no actual way to get to the truth of what is means to be pious because the gods cannot be asked, or at least, would have no use for mortals.
In the middle of the dialogue, when Euthyphro said that to be pious is to do things that are loved by the gods, it reminds of placing someone on a pedestal and trying to worship and please them. This is unhealthy and toxic behavior. No one should be placed on a pedestal because human beings are not gods, they are only human; and the attempt to worship someone as a god is the true meaning of piety. Simiarly to how all the gods will disagree with what they love, a person placed on a pedestal will make demands that are contradictory and are impossible to know. The same way Socrates says that how do you know something is pious if the gods love it, how do you know it’s good to do something for someone you idolize simply because they love that you do it? What is actually good about it? The answer is that you don’t know, and not knowing why a good action is good, but doing it anyway is exactly what piety is.
I think this dialogue is actually quite revealing of how wrong it is to act under piety. Euthyphro seemed to act against his own father, not out of a sense of justice or because he knew his father was bad, but out mindlessness or simply because the gods thought so. If the gods did exist, or if one truly believes the gods are real, sure that’s fine to do whatever the gods say, but to not really know why the gods like certain things? What if the gods are bad? What if piety and justice don’t go hand and hand? What then?
It seems much more reasonable to testify against someone because one can explain the actual bad action, regardless if it is pious. If it’s pious, then it’s a bonus. But again, Euthyphro acted piously without seemingly to even considering justice or correctness, and he didn’t seem to really know or care to know what the gods thought about the action the way Socrates did. And finally he didn’t seem to care about his own father or the dangers of testifying against his own father because of his piety.
What I take from the dialogue is that acting under piety is to place your understanding of morality on someone else, to having faith that what you’re doing is right and moral because the person you worship and idolize said so. Regardless if the person you worship is real, a god, or correct, you can’t know; and not knowing makes it easy to act on what the pious act is.