Euthyphro, from the beginning seems as he knows everything and anything regarding the laws when he says he is prosecuting his father. Euthyphro is prosecuting his father for the murder since, it is considered a religious crime by Greeks. Euthyphro proudly claims that he is an expert in all religious matters, and this is what differentiates him and a common man. Euthyphro suggests that prosecuting those who commit injustice is holy and not prosecuting them is unholy. Euthyphro notes that his family is angry with him carrying out this prosecution on behalf of a murderer, but he assures them that he knows better than to ensure the position of divine law regarding what is holy and what is unholy. Slowly through questioning, Socrates brings out the truth, that Euthyphro is in fact totally ignorant regarding his field. Even though, Euthyphro assures Socrates, that he is indeed an expert, we …show more content…
I like how in the story, Socrates’ concern is with the definition of holiness, which he feels Euthyphro has not yet properly dealt with. Euthyphro concedes that there are various holy deeds that don’t consist in prosecuting a religious offender. Socrates urges Euthyphro to give a more general definition and to identify a standard by which all holy deeds can be recognized as holy. Even though, in the story Socrates says that Euthyphro should teach his understanding of the laws, he doesn’t actually expect to learn from Euthyphro, but intends to lead him out of his false confidence in his supposed knowledge and toward a more humble acknowledgement of his own ignorance. Socrates’ method is not to tell him that he is mistaken in claiming to be an expert on religious matters, but rather to show him through questioning. Just by asking him, what is a definition of holiness, Socrates shows Euthyphro that he has no understanding at all. I like how Socrates used this method to falsify Euthyphro’s