Socrates and Euthyphro ran into each other outside the court of Athens. Socrates is there because he is charged for impiety by Meletus, while Euthyphro is there because he is prosecuting his own father for an unintentional murder of a household slave. After listening to the reason of Euthyphro’s presence at court, Socrates is flattered by him, as he thinks surely a person bringing charges against his own father must have great knowledge on piety and impiety. He thinks no one will do such a thing unless they are absolutely sure it is the right thing to do so he asks Euthyphro to teach him what holiness is and what piety and impiety is, so that it might help him in his trial against Meletus. In reply at first Euthyphro says that piety is what he is doing, prosecuting the person who offended religion by murdering, even though he is his own father. He then further 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 …show more content…
Socrates is treating Euthyphro as the teacher, when in fact Socrates is teaching Euthyphro. It seems like Euthyphro is not thinking along the right line at all. Let’s take into account the Divine command theory, which says that the moral action is the one of God says is moral and if God prohibits it then it’s not moral. This theory is widely held to be refuted by Euthyphro argument. Euthyphro, the argument, gives two alternatives to the divine command theory that either morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God. Further he explained that neither alternative is true and therefore the Divine command theory is false. So 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