Plato's Euthyphro

INTRODUCTION AND THESIS

In Euthyphro, Plato gives some insight into Socrates’ view of religion. The examination of religion takes the form of a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro regarding the nature of holiness, one of the five Greek virtues that also included justice, prudence, courage and wisdom. Plato ends the discussion without a conclusion as to whether there is a definition of holiness but in the process he makes Euthyphro present and analyze his own arguments and see their faults for himself. This is essentially central to Plato’s view and theme of his teaching that knowledge is not reciting the right answers but knowing how to explain and justify those answers.

SUMMARY

The dialogue begins outside of the court of Athens, where Socrates meets Euthyphro. Euthyphro has come to court to testify against his own father for having killed a murderous hired hand, while Socrates has come to answer charges of impiety filed by Miletus. Socrates flatters Euthyphro, indicating that he must be an expert in religion and morality if he is willing to prosecute his father on such a questionable charge. Socrates convinces Euthyphro to instruct him on what holiness is and so begins the dialogue.

Euthyphro first suggests that holiness is persecuting offenders, but Socrates is not satisfied with that, stating that there are many holy deeds which do not entail persecuting offenders. He asks instead for a general definition of holiness and after a few failed efforts, Euthyphro finally formulates his best attempt, saying that what is holy is what is approved of by the gods. Socrates again is unsatisfied, taking apart that definition by skillfully arguing that this definition is insufficient because it does not define the reason for which the gods approve of something.

Euthyphro tries again to define holiness by stating that it is a form of justice, the kind which is concerned with looking after the gods. Socrates wonders why the omnipotent gods need to be helped by mere humans and so Euthyphro gives his final definition as a form of trading with the gods, in which the humans give sacrifices and the gods answer their prayers. The prayers do not help the gods, but only gratify them. But Socrates then points out that saying that holiness is what gratifies the gods is merely returning to the problem of saying that holiness is what is approved by the gods. At this point Euthyphro gives up and leaves in frustration.

ANALYSIS

Euthyphro is one of Plato’s earlier dialogues following his standard formula of keeping the dialogues brief, dealing with an ethical question, consisting of a conversation between Socrates and someone claiming to be an expert in a certain field of ethics and ending inconclusively. Socrates’ irony is evident throughout the story as he poses the role of the ignorant student hoping to learn at the feet of the expert, in this case Euthyphro.

Although the ethical discussion on holiness and how it can be defined is central to the dialogue, the most interesting aspect is the lack of conclusion at the end of Socrates’ and Euthyphro’s debate. This isn’t unique to Plato’s works, but it is worth investigating. The question that arises after reading Euthyphro is whether Plato really has an answer for the debate or not? Can holiness be defined and is there a common aspect among holy deeds? If there is, why doesn’t Plato reveal it in his dialogue and conclude the debate?

Or maybe he did conclude the debate. That’s the key to viewing this argument in a different light. Maybe Plato’s end goal was not in answering the question, but to question how we know an answer. As mentioned before, Plato believes that true knowledge is only found when we are able to justify and explain our beliefs and not only recite them. He wants the reader to discover the right answer for himself and in so doing acquire true knowledge. In this case, Plato wanted Euthyphro to work through his own answers and find better ones. Through the dialogue format, Plato makes Euthyphro analyze each answer, and even through he eventually leaves the debate frustrated, the reader at least can pick up on the fact that Plato is holding back an attempt to answer to force the reader to think independently and formulate an adequate definition without his help.

Traditionally in Christian theology, holiness has been defined as the will of God. Plato seems to be questioning whether the will of the gods (or God) can be used as the basis for the definition of holiness and he wants the reader to think along other lines. C. S. Lewis, however, addresses the question of holiness in his excellent book, Mere Christianity, and shows how there are eternal universal laws present in this world, such as the law of Gravity and the Law of Human Nature. The Law of Human Nature is the innate morality law which mankind “ought” to follow for the benefit of all, but since they are free to choose, they rarely follow this law because of sin.

This is perhaps the answer to Plato’s question but the reason why he rejects defining holiness as the will of God is based on his belief that the world is only an imitation of a perfect reality. Therefore only reason can explain anything in this world because this world is merely a reflection. Lewis based a lot of his science fiction novels and allegories on this Platonic belief, but he still found hope in defining holiness and exhorting his readers to strive towards achieving this holiness, even in the face of evil.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) Plato. Plato's Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates and Crito. (The Clarendon Press; Oxford; 1924)

2) Plato. The Republic, and other works of Plato, translated by Benjamin Jowett

3) C. S. Lewis. Mere Christianity. (London, G. Bles, 1952)

4) C. S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain. (London; Fontana Books, 1975)