A Brief Inquiry Into Euthyphro's Argument

A Brief Inquiry Into Euthyphro

In this short essay, I will outline Socrate’s argument in response to Euthyphro’s definition of Piety. In order to do this, I will first outline the argument using quotations from the next, and numbered premises. Then, I will go on to explain the argument and its conclusion in prose.

To understand Socrates’ argument, it is important to outline our premises and conclusions in a standard format. I consider the beginning of the argument to be at 9e in the text, where Euthyphro makes a new statement about the nature of piety that Socrates uses as the basis and first premise for his argument to refute this claim. The argument goes as follows:

Premise 1 (Provided by Euthyphro): “the pious is what all gods love,

Thus, the first premise is that which is pious is that which is loved by all the gods. Socrates then begins to question Euthyphro, and leads him to agree that something carried and something carrying are two different concepts. He then compares this to something being loved, and establishes that something being loved is different than something loving. He then returns to his analogy of that which is carried. He and Euthyphro agree that a carried thing is such because it is being carried, not for some other reason. The general principle established here is that if something is being changed or affected, it is not being changed because it is a changed thing, but rather it is a changed thing because it is being changed. Socrates then makes sure that they agree that something that is loved is being changed or affected. Next, they establish that something is not loved because it is a loved thing, but rather it is a loved thing because it is being loved. Socrates then reaffirms that Euthyphro still defines piety as that which is loved by all the gods. Now, he has set up his contradiction. He asks Euthyphro if that which is pious is being loved because it is pious, and Euthyhphro says yes. Because Socrates had established equivalency between “that which is loved” and “piety,” there is a contradiction between premises nine and

Socrates aims to point out the fact that Euthyphro’s definition of piety is not sufficient. To do this he utilizes his usual technique of setting Euthyphro up for failure with socratic questioning. Looking more specifically into the validity and soundness of the argument, it seems that all of the premises are relevant, and lead to the logical conclusion. Additionally all of the premises appear to be factually true. The conclusion that Socrates draws using this argument is essentially that by Euthyphro’s definition of piety, there has to be some sort of outside definition or quality that defines it, other than the gods’ love for it. Euthyphro insists that what is pious is loved by the gods because it is pious, implying that that which is pious is so regardless of the gods' love for it. This contradicts Euthyphro’s original definition in which he claims that that which is pious is that which is loved by the gods. By his own reasoning, it’s possible that that which is pious happens to also be loved by the gods, but it’s piety cannot be defined by that love