In the Euthyphro debate we witness Socrates encountering Euthyphro outside of the Athenian court. Socrates has been brought to court for being charged of impiety while Euthyphro has decided to come to court to prosecute his own father. Socrates decides to make a game of this, stating that Euthyphro must be a master in all things religion if he has decided to prosecute his own father. Euthyphro agrees that he does know about all things holy and Socrates decides to listen, hoping that it may help him in his trial against Mellitus.
While Euthyphro lends Socrates a few of his perspectives on what holy truly is Socrates has two main proposals against what he has to say. The first is “what all the gods disapprove of is unholy, what all approve of is holy.” Socrates provides specific proof on how that is incorrect. His main point is that all of the very different gods believe in very different things. A main example made by Socrates is that Zeus may approve of punishing one’s father while Uranus or Kronos may not. Euthyphro then goes into how a person who has killed someone unjustly surely will be looked down upon by all of the gods and how they must agree that a certain killing should be considered unjust. In order to convince the judges of the court that Euthyphro convincing that his fathers killing is just then Euthyphro would have to prove that all the
…show more content…
Euthyphro curates the comparison that Piety is the part of justice concerned with the well being of the gods, while the remaining part of justice concerns the well being of the men. Socrates says that Euthyphro seems to phrase that debate very well but he still needs more information. Being knowledgeable of Socrates and knowing how he is and how he works asking for "a bit of information" can be ominous