Euthyphro
Euthyphro and Socrates encounter each other outside the law courts in Athens. Socrates has been charged with
impiety by a young man, Meletus, who has accused Socrates of inventing new gods and rejecting the old ones.
Euthyphro, on the other hand, has charged his own father with murder. He explained that his father killed one of
his hired laborers. The laborer had been working on Naxos, started drinking, became angry with one of the
domestic servants, and murdered him. His father had the murderer bound and thrown into a ditch and then sent a
messenger to Athens to see how the situation should be handled. In the meantime, the murdered died from
neglect. Euthyphro argues that any such charge should not depend on one’s relationship with the accused, even if
the accused is one’s own father.
Socrates asked if Euthyphro was afraid of doing an unholy deed in prosecuting his father. Euthyphro replied that
he would not have charged his father without an accurate knowledge of what is holy and unholy. Socrates said
that he could use such knowledge in his upcoming trial for impiety. He directly asks Euthyphro for his precise
definition of “holy” and “unholy.” Euthyphro says that what he is doing with his father is holy; failure to prosecute
would be unholy. He then referred to how Zeus shackled his own father, Cronus.
Socrates asks Euthyphro is he really believes the stories about the gods and their hatreds and battles. Euthyphro
answers affirmatively. Socrates moves on to press Euthyphro on a general definition of “holiness” as the situation
with his father covers only one specific situation. Euthryphro says that what is pleasing to the gods is holy and
what is not pleasing, unholy. Socrates then points out that the gods do not agree among themselves on many
issues and therefore it is not clear what universally pleases the gods.
Socrates then proposes that what all of the gods approve is holy and what they all disapprove, unholy. Euthyphro
agrees, so Socrates then asks whether something holy because the gods approve it or do they approve it because it
is holy.
Using several examples, Socrates then proposes that the something is not loved because the gods love it, but
rather the gods love it because it is loved. Taking the next step, he says that the holy is loved because it is holy, not
because it is loved. Something being loved of the gods is not therefore the reason of its being loved. So Socrates
again says that Euthyphro has not defined what is holy, since something is holy without regard to whether or not
the gods love it.
Socrates cites a poem, which says, “Where fear is, there too is reverence.” He disagrees with the poem since
people fear disease and poverty, but they do not hold them in reverence. Just the reverse of the poem is true;
where there is reverence, there is fear. And so it is with justice and holiness; where there is holiness, there is
justice, but sometimes there is justice without holiness.
Euthyphro argues that what is both just and holy has to do with service to the gods, whereas that which is just
alone has to do with service to mankind. Socrates then asks for a clearer definition of “service.” He gives
examples of how service makes the recipient of the service better, but does service of the gods (i.e., holiness)
make the gods better? Denying this conclusion, Euthyphro argues that service of the gods is actually waiting on
the gods. Socrates replies that waiting on gods must then enable the gods to produce something.
Socrates says that service to the gods means sacrifices on their behalf, so sacrifices are for the gods and prayer is
for man to ask for something from the gods, something not ordinarily available to humans. But what can man do
to benefit the gods? If sacrifices are pleasing to the gods, then holiness is giving pleasure to the gods. Euthyphro
ran out of time and had to leave.