Euthyphro by Plato

The life and teachings of Socrates (c. 469-399 B.C.) stand at the foundation of Western philosophy. He lived in Athens during a time of transition (Athens' defeat at the hands of Sparta in the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.) ended the Golden Age of Athenian civilization) and had a tremendous influence on the Athenian youth of his day. Socrates himself never recorded his thoughts, so our only record of his life and thought come from his contemporaries. These accounts are mixed and often biased by the interpretations the author wishes to place on Socrates.

It seems that Socrates led a very simple life, renouncing wealth and holding himself aloof from political ambitions, preferring instead to mingle with the crowds in Athens' public places, engaging whomever he could in conversation. Nonetheess, we know that he did serve as a hoplite (heavy infantry) in several battles during the Peloponnesian War and that he was distinguished for his bravery. In 399, Socrates was brought before a jury of around 500 Athenians on charges of not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, of inventing new deities, and of corrupting the youth of Athens.

The most likely reason for this trial is Socrates' close association with a number of men who had fallen out of political favor in Athens. But because an amnesty had been declared for political offenders, other charges had to be brought against him. Socrates was found guilty by a narrow margin and then sentenced to death. Socrates' response to the charges brought against him are recorded by Plato in The Apology.

Plato (c. 427-347 B.C.) was one of Socrates' greatest admirers, and our knowledge of Socrates stems mostly from Plato's dialogues (for other accounts, see Aristophanes' satirical presentation in The Clouds and the writings of Xenophon). Plato was born into a prominent Athenian family, and would have been expected to pursue a career in politics. However, the short-lived Spartan- imposed oligarchy of the Thirty Tyrants (404-403) and the trial and execution of his mentor Socrates led Plato to become disgusted with the Athenian political life, and he devoted himself instead to teaching and philosophical inquiry. To that end, he founded the Academy around 385 B.C., which counted Aristotle among its students. The Academy lasted in some form until 527 A.D., 912 years in total, and has served as the prototype for the Western university system.

Plato's thought is mostly recorded in the form of dialogues that feature Socrates as the protagonist. Apparently, the Socratic dialogue was a small literary genre at the time: not just Plato, but many of Socrates' other students recorded philosophical debates in this form. Though we can't be certain as to the specific dates of composition, Plato's dialogues can generally be classed into early, middle, and late periods. The early dialogues were written soon after Socrates' death, and in them we get the clearest picture of Socrates and Socratic philosophy. As Plato matured, however, he developed an increasingly distinct voice and philosophical outlook. The figure of Socrates in these middle and late dialogues (The Republic and Phaedo are two exemplary works of the more mature Plato) becomes more of a mouthpiece for Plato's own views. The Euthyphro is one of Plato's earlier dialogues, in which we find none of his more characteristic doctrines, but rather an attempt to present Socrates the teacher. Instead of positive doctrines or ideas, the dialogue is characterized by the use of Socratic irony in an attempt to teach others to recognize their own ignorance

Euthyphro  - The interlocutor of the dialogue, and its namesake. Euthyphro is an orthodox and dogmatically religious man, believing he knows everything there is to know about holy matters. He often makes prophecies to others, and has brought his father to trial on a questionable murder charge. We do not know whether or not Euthyphro is a historical personage or whether he is a fictitious invention of Plato's.

Meletus  - The man chiefly responsible for pressing charges against Socrates, bringing him to trial, and having him executed. Little is known about Meletus and by all accounts, he seems to have been a rather insignificant figure. Plato's portrayal of him, both in The Apology and in the Euthyphro, is far from sympathetic; Socrates' cross-examination of him in The Apology puts him to shame. He does not actually appear in the Euthyphro, but he is mentioned on a number of occasions.

Socrates encounters Euthyphro outside the court of Athens. Socrates has been called to court on charges of impiety by Meletus, and Euthyphro has come to prosecute his own father for having unintentionally killed a murderous hired hand. Socrates flatters Euthyphro, suggesting that Euthyphro must be a great expert in religious matters if he is willing to prosecute his own father on so questionable a charge. Euthyphro concurs that he does indeed know all there is to be known about what is holy. Socrates urges Euthyphro to instruct him and to teach him what holiness is, since Euthyphro's teaching might help Socrates in his trial against Meletus.

First, Euthyphro suggests that holiness is persecuting religious offenders. Socrates finds this definition unsatisfying, since there are many holy deeds aside from that of persecuting offenders. He asks Euthyphro instead to give him a general definition that identifies that one feature that all holy deeds share in common. Euthyphro suggests that what is holy is what is agreeable to the gods, in response to which Socrates points out that the gods often quarrel, so what is agreeable to one might not be agreeable to all.

Euthyphro's most important attempt to define holiness comes with his suggestion that what is holy is what is approved of by all the gods. Socrates sets up a rather elaborate argument to show that the two cannot be equivalent. What is holy gets approved of by the gods because it is holy, so what is holy determines what gets approved of by the gods. And what gets approved of by the gods in turn determines what is approved of by the gods. It follows from this reasoning that what is holy cannot be the same thing as what is approved of by the gods, since one of these two determines what gets approved of by the gods and the other is determined by what gets approved of by the gods.

Euthyphro is next led to suggest that holiness is a kind of justice, specifically, that kind which is concerned with looking after the gods. Socrates wonders what Euthyphro means by "looking after the gods." Surely, the gods are omnipotent, and don't need us to look after them or help them in any way. Euthyphro's final suggestion is that holiness is a kind of trading with the gods, where we give them sacrifices and they grant our prayers. Our sacrifices do not help them in any way, but simply gratify them. But, Socrates points out, to say that holiness is gratifying the gods is similar to saying that holiness is what is approved of by the gods, which lands us back in our previous conundrum. Rather than try to find a better definition, Euthyphro leaves in a huff, frustrated by Socrates' questioning.

The Euthyphro is a paradigmatic early dialogue of Plato's: it is brief, deals with a question in ethics, consists of a conversation between Socrates and one other person who claims to be an expert in a certain field of ethics, and ends inconclusively. It is also riddled with Socratic irony: Socrates poses as the ignorant student hoping to learn from a supposed expert, when in fact he shows Euthyphro to be the ignorant one who knows nothing about the subject (holiness).

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the dialogue is the inconclusiveness with which it ends. This inconclusiveness is hardly unique to the Euthyphro, but it is worth investigating. Is Plato suggesting that there is no such thing as a definition of holiness, that there is no one feature that all holy deeds have in common? And if he does think that there is a common link, why does he not reveal it to us in the dialogue?

We may link the inconclusiveness of the dialogue to the dialogue form itself and the irony Socrates employs. Plato's main goal is to teach us, and he believes firmly (as we gather in other dialogues, notably the Meno) that knowledge only comes when we are able to justify and account for our true beliefs. Thus, teaching is not simply a matter of giving the right answers. It is a matter of leading the student toward the right answers and ensuring that the student can explain and justify the answers rather than simply repeat them. The dialogue form is ideal for this kind of teaching; it shows Socrates leading Euthyphro through Euthyphro's own reasoning, and thereby letting Euthyphro sort things out for himself.

The irony is present because Socrates is treating Euthyphro as the teacher when in fact Socrates is teaching Euthyphro. This setup is necessary in order to encourage Euthyphro to present and analyze his own arguments, and thus to lead him to see their faults for himself. The dialogue ends inconclusively perhaps in order to urge the reader to think independently and struggle to formulate an adequate definition without Plato's help.

There is some suggestion that Euthyphro is not thinking along the right lines at all. The definition that Euthyphro holds equates what is holy with what is approved of by the gods. Socrates' skillful argument shows that this definition is insufficient: though what is holy may be approved of by the gods, the two cannot be the same thing. If the gods approve of something because it is holy, then their approval cannot be what makes it holy. Alternatively, if it is holy because the gods approve of it, then we still don't know for what reason the gods approve of it. It seems that any attempt to ground our definition of holiness in the will or approval of the gods is bound to fail. We might normally associate holiness with some sort of divine will, but Plato seems to be suggesting that we should think along another line altogether.

Perhaps this other line is the Theory of Forms (discussed in the Phaedo), which would posit the Form of Holiness as the defining characteristic of all holy things. There are hints toward this position in the dialogue, though it is highly unlikely that Plato had developed any kind of technical theory by the time the Euthyphro was written. Perhaps the absence of this formulated theory is what leads the dialogue to end inconclusively.

Summary

Socrates and Euthyphro meet by the Porch of the King Archon, one of the judges responsible for overseeing religious law. Euthyphro, surprised to see Socrates, asks what brings him here. Socrates answers that he is being prosecuted by Meletus--a young unknown with straight hair, a sparse beard, and a hooked nose. Meletus believes Socrates is corrupting the youth of Athens, and wants to prosecute him. Socrates remarks what a promising young start this Meletus is making, weeding out the corruptors of the city's youth: Socrates himself believes that the excellence of the youth should be of utmost concern. Meletus has also accused Socrates of inventing new gods and not recognizing those that exist.

Euthyphro remarks that this accusation is probably connected to the divine sign that Socrates claims to be visited by on occasion. Euthyphro, too, is often disbelieved when he speaks about divine matters or predicts the future. He reassures Socrates that one must simply endure these prejudices, and asserts his confidence that Socrates will come out fine in the end.

Socrates inquires as to why Euthyphro has come to court, and Euthyphro answers that he is prosecuting his father for murder (which was considered a religious crime by the Greeks). Socrates is amazed that Euthyphro should want to prosecute his own father, remarking that Euthyphro must have very advanced knowledge of these sorts of matters to be making such a bold move. And, Socrates suggests, his father must have killed another family member: surely, Euthyphro would not go to such pains on behalf of an outsider.

Euthyphro replies that he is indeed an expert in these matters, and that, contrary to Socrates' suggestion, the murdered man is not of Euthyphro's family. All that matters in these cases, Euthyphro asserts, is whether or not the killer killed with justification: we should make no exceptions even if the murderer is our father and the murdered man is not close to us. His father has committed an impious act that pollutes Euthyphro and his whole family, and this sin must be purged by means of prosecution.

It turns out that the murdered man was a hired hand of Euthyphro's, helping with the farming on Naxos. The man got drunk and, in a rage, slit the throat of one of Euthyphro's servants. Euthyphro's father bound this murderer, threw him in a ditch, and sent for the Interpreter, the official who is responsible for dealing with such crimes. But before the Interpreter could arrive, the hired hand died of exposure in the ditch. Euthyphro notes that his family is angry with him for carrying out such a prosecution on behalf of a murderer, but Euthyphro asserts that he knows better than they do the position of divine law regarding what is holy and what is unholy.