Have you ever been asked to define a concept that seemed simple enough, only to find yourself struggling to come up with a clear and concise answer?
This is exactly what happens in one of the most famous dialogues in philosophy, where one person is asked to define the concept of piety or holiness.
The purpose of this dialogue is not only to establish a clear definition but also to provide a basis for understanding the essence of the thing being defined.
In this article, we will explore the fascinating conversation between two individuals and delve into the intricacies of defining a universal concept.
So, what does Socrates ask Euthyphro to define?
Let’s find out.
What Does Socrates Ask Euthyphro To Define
Socrates asks Euthyphro to define the concept of piety or holiness. The purpose of this request is to establish a clear and universally true definition that can be used to measure all actions and determine whether they are pious or not.
Euthyphro attempts to define piety in five different ways, but each time Socrates finds flaws in the definition. The first definition is that piety is prosecuting wrongdoers, and impiety is failing to do so. However, Socrates argues that this is just an example of piety and not a general definition.
The second definition is that piety is what is loved by the gods, and impiety is what is hated by the gods. But Socrates points out that the gods sometimes disagree among themselves about questions of justice, making this definition inadequate.
The third definition is that piety is what is loved by all the gods, and impiety is what all the gods hate. However, Socrates poses a powerful question: do the gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because the gods love it? This leads to a deeper understanding of the essence of piety as an intrinsic property rather than something defined by the gods’ attitudes towards it.
The fourth definition is that piety is that part of justice concerned with caring for the gods. But Socrates argues that the notion of care involved here is unclear and cannot be compared to caring for a dog or an enslaved person.
Finally, the fifth definition is that piety is saying and doing what is pleasing to the gods at prayer and sacrifice. However, Socrates shows how this definition is just a disguised version of the third definition.
The Setting Of The Dialogue: Who Are Socrates And Euthyphro?
The dialogue takes place in Athens in 399 BCE, where Socrates is facing charges of impiety and corruption of the youth, while Euthyphro is prosecuting his own father for the murder of a hired hand. Socrates is known for his philosophical inquiry and his method of questioning to arrive at a deeper understanding of concepts. Euthyphro, on the other hand, claims to be an expert in religious matters and believes he is acting piously by prosecuting his father.
The circumstances of the trial against Socrates cast a shadow over the discussion, as his life is on the line. This creates a sense of urgency and importance to the conversation between Socrates and Euthyphro. The dialogue serves as an example of Socratic teaching, where Socrates asks questions to challenge Euthyphro’s understanding of piety and to arrive at a clear and universally true definition.
The Challenge Of Defining Piety
The challenge of defining piety lies in finding a definition that is universally true and can be applied to all actions. Euthyphro’s attempts to define piety demonstrate the difficulty in doing so. Each of his definitions either relies on specific examples or is vague and unclear.
Socrates’ objection to the third definition highlights the deeper issue with defining piety. If piety is simply what the gods love, then it becomes arbitrary and subjective. However, if piety is an intrinsic property of actions, then it can be objectively measured and applied universally.
The challenge then becomes finding a way to identify this intrinsic property of piety. Socrates suggests that it must be something that is consistent across all pious actions, and which serves as a standard for determining whether an action is pious or not.
This challenge of defining piety extends beyond the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro. It is a philosophical problem that has persisted throughout history and continues to be debated today. The search for a clear and universally true definition of piety remains an ongoing challenge for philosophers and theologians alike.
Euthyphro’s First Attempt At Defining Piety
Euthyphro’s first attempt at defining piety is that it involves prosecuting wrongdoers, while impiety is failing to do so. He believes that this is a general definition of piety, but Socrates disagrees. Socrates argues that this is merely an example of piety and not a universal definition that can be applied to all actions.
Socrates challenges Euthyphro to provide a definition that can be used as a standard to determine whether an action is pious or not. He insists on a definition that captures the essence of piety and distinguishes it from impiety. Euthyphro’s first attempt fails to meet these requirements, and Socrates pushes him to come up with a more comprehensive definition.
This exchange between Socrates and Euthyphro highlights the difficulty of defining abstract concepts like piety. It also shows how Socrates uses questioning and critical thinking to challenge assumptions and arrive at a deeper understanding of complex ideas.
Socrates’ Critique Of Euthyphro’s Definition
Socrates critiques each of Euthyphro’s definitions of piety and finds flaws in all of them. He argues that the first definition is too specific to be considered a general definition of piety. The second definition is inadequate because the gods can disagree among themselves about questions of justice. The third definition leads to a deeper understanding of the essence of piety as an intrinsic property rather than something defined by the gods’ attitudes towards it.
Socrates’ critique of the fourth definition is that the notion of care involved in caring for the gods is unclear and cannot be compared to caring for a dog or an enslaved person. Lastly, Socrates shows how the fifth definition is just a disguised version of the third definition.
Euthyphro’s Second Attempt At Defining Piety
Euthyphro’s second attempt at defining piety is that it is what is pleasing to the gods. Socrates initially approves of this definition because it is expressed in a general form. However, he then criticizes it by pointing out that the gods sometimes disagree among themselves about what is pleasing. This means that an action could be both pious and impious at the same time, which is logically impossible.
Euthyphro tries to refute Socrates’ criticism by arguing that even the gods would agree that someone who kills without justification should be punished. But Socrates counters this by saying that disputes would still arise over just how much justification actually existed. Therefore, the same action could be both pious and impious, rendering Euthyphro’s definition inadequate.
This exchange between Socrates and Euthyphro highlights the difficulty of defining abstract concepts like piety. It also raises questions about the nature of morality and whether it is determined by the gods or some other intrinsic property. Ultimately, Socrates’ quest for a clear and universally true definition of piety remains unresolved.
Socrates’ Critique Of Euthyphro’s Second Definition
Socrates critiques Euthyphro’s second definition of piety, which states that piety is what is loved by the gods, and impiety is what is hated by the gods. Socrates points out that the gods sometimes disagree among themselves about questions of justice, making this definition inadequate.
Socrates’ critique challenges the idea that the gods’ attitudes towards an action or behavior can define its piety. He suggests that if something is pious because the gods love it, then piety becomes arbitrary and subject to the whims of the gods. On the other hand, if the gods love something because it is inherently pious, then piety has an intrinsic property that exists independently of the gods’ attitudes.
This critique highlights Socrates’ commitment to finding a universal and objective definition of piety that can be applied to all actions and behaviors. It also shows his skepticism towards relying on the authority of the gods to determine what is pious or impious.
