The Danger of Philosophy: On Goodness and the Gods

Reflections on Plato's Euthyphro

In the age of online discourse and hyperreal simulation, the Greeks are a breath of fresh air. Their honest and direct search for the most fundamental things draws me into the ancient wells of wisdom. Plato is not a wholly exoteric writer, but the issues tackled by the dialogues are simple yet profoundly important. In Euthyphro, the dialogue centers on Socrates’ quest to find the nature of piety.

Socrates encounters a local religious teacher named Euthyphro after Meletus has brought down the famous ‘corruption of the youth’ charge. Meletus accuses Socrates of making new gods and replacing the old ones. Euthyphro replies that he is also involved in a suit. His suit is against his father for the murder of a field laborer.

Euthyphro explains that he is doing so because he believes in serving justice even when the criminal is his father. Socrates, in recognizing the clear piety of Euthyphro in putting justice above family relations, launches a plan to become Euthyphro’s disciple. Euthyphro is both a pious man and a religious teacher and would easily be recognized as such in a court of law. So, if Socrates learns the essence of piety from Euthyphro, he can claim to be a disciple. This would complicate things for Meletus because in charging Socrates, he would also have to charge Euthyphro, a man of piety and right faith. Thus begins the dialogue.

Unfortunately, Socrates is unable to extract an exact definition of piety from Euthyphro. The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro implies that some degree of corner-cutting and imprecision in religious beliefs is allowable, and perhaps necessary, for right action.

Cronus Devouring His Child by Giulia Lama, 1720

The Hunt for Piety

To become a disciple, Socrates asks Euthyphro to explain the essence of piety. He asks, is piety the same regardless of action? And is impiety always the opposite of piety?

Euthyphro says yes. He explains that piety is prosecuting those guilty of crimes: doing justice. Impiety is the privation of the quest for justice.

Euthyphro compares his suit to Zeus's binding of Cronos. In both cases, the son held the father accountable. But the same people who praise Zeus are angry with Euthyphro. Euthyphro understands that what he is doing is pious according to religious doctrine, even though others do not see it.

Socrates is unsatisfied. The wandering philosopher does not want examples of piety and impiety. He wants to know the essential definitions of piety and impiety. Euthyphro explains that piety is what is dear to the gods, and impiety is what is not.

Euthyphro mentioned that the gods have occasional enmity with each other. If two parties have enmity with one another, they do not have a simple disagreement. If the disagreement was economic or mathematical, they could simply calculate it to resolution. Differences that produce enmity are about fundamental questions of what is right or wrong.

Therefore, if the gods have occasional enmity with one another, they cannot have complete agreement over the essence of justice. Euthyphro’s second attempt to define piety fails. The gods disagree on issues of justice and goodness. Socrates and Euthyphro both agree that a person (or god) loves what they think is good and hates what they think is evil. Therefore, the gods hate and love different things. Piety cannot just be what the gods love because different gods love different things.

Euthyphro goes back to examples. Surely, the gods would unanimously agree that punishing a murderer is a show of piety.

Socrates gives Euthyphro the benefit of the doubt. He grants that the pious is that which all the gods love, and the impious is that which all the gods hate. If some hate and some love some specific action, it cannot be pious or impious. Euthyphro is okay with this definition.

Socrates then asks a new question: is the pious so because it is loved by the gods, or do the gods love that which is pious because it is pious? This confuses Euthyphro. But when Socrates clarifies, Euthyphro affirms that the gods love the pious because it is pious. This means, once again, that Euthyphro has failed to teach Socrates the essence of piety.

Euthyphro laments that his arguments seem to be walking around on their own and escaping him. If Socrates had not begun questioning his beliefs, he would have been satisfied with his understanding of piety and justice.

Socrates’ Attempt to Force an Answer

Socrates does not relent. Is the pious necessarily just? And if so, is all that is just pious, or is only some of what is just pious? Socrates states that reverence does not come from fear, but fear comes from reverence. Fear is an extended notion of which reverence is only a part. In the same way, justice is an extended notion of which piety is a part.

But what part of justice is piety? Euthyphro believes piety is the part of justice that attends to the gods.

But what does it mean to attend? A horseman attends to his horses. This benefits the horses. But man cannot attend to the gods in a way that benefits the gods. That cannot be the kind of attendance that Euthyphro meant.

Rather, it is the kind of attending a servant does to their master, a ministration. Socrates attempts to extract the chief work of this ministration, and Euthyphro, fed up, says that it amounts to pleasing the gods in word, deed, prayer, and sacrifice.

Piety seems to be a science of asking from and giving to the gods, according to Euthyphro's definition. It is an art of men and gods doing business with one another. But the gods do not need anything from us, and we need everything from them! So, it seems to be an unfair business arrangement in which man takes advantage of the gods.

Euthyphro clarifies that piety is pleasing to the gods and is dear to them. Socrates points out that Euthyphro's argument has walked around to the same point. He has gone in a circle.

Socrates demands that Euthyphro explain the nature of piety to him, sure that he knows it because he is bringing charges against his father for murder. Euthyphro says he has no more time to talk and must go. Socrates laments that he has not become a disciple of Euthyphro and, therefore, cannot use discipleship as a defense in court.

Dissatisfaction

A tempting interpretation of this dialogue is that belief in the gods is unreasonable and that we cannot look to religion for an understanding of piety. This is a poor interpretation, and it is not the conclusion that Socrates reaches. In Plato’s Apology, Socrates emphatically denies that he is an atheist. He affirms the existence of spiritual reality until the day he dies.

It is important to remember that Socrates does not challenge Euthyphro’s conduct. Rather, he immediately recognizes that Euthyphro is a pious man and a religious man. Socrates attempts to understand how Euthyphro gains his piety from his faith. He does not question if Euthyphro is pious.

The lack of a precise conclusion does not mean there is no such thing as piety, nor does it mean that piety has a Divine origin. Throughout the dialogue, Euthyphro occasionally laments his confusion and seems somewhat annoyed with Socrates’ inquiry. He says that he was happy with his level of understanding before. Socrates’ line of questioning has upset him where he was once happy.

Was it wrong for Euthyphro to be happy before examining the matter of piety? No, because despite Euthyphro’s lack of deep contemplation on the issue, the myths he lived by produced good behavior. Euthyphro’s unexamined understanding of piety did not stop him from embodying piety.

The purpose of myth is behavior guidance. If myths guide action in a positive direction and promote general human well-being, the myth is a positive force in society. It is positive even if it is not true by a strict metric of reason or science.

Was it wrong, then, for Socrates to enquire? Not necessarily, but the case can be made (and was made, and Socrates lost). Philosophy can be dangerous. One could imagine a world where, after Euthyphro leaves, he is puzzled by the nature of piety and drops the case because he is not sure if what he is doing is truly pious. He could mull it over in his head for months, trying to come up with a complete understanding of the essence of piety before continuing the suit against his father. In philosophizing further, justice is not done, and his murderous father goes free.

This is not to say that we should not engage in philosophy. Philosophy enables a deeper and richer understanding of reality, and over many iterations, it could lead to a general improvement in human conduct. However, if pure, unbridled reason is pursued at the expense of everything else, it could destroy important myths used as heuristics for behavioral guidance by the common man. When those go, nihilism creeps in.

Christ tells a parable of a man who gets rid of his demon. Once the demon is gone, he cleans up his mind and sets things in order. Christ uses the analogy of a room or living space. When the demon comes back to check in on where it once was, it realizes the space is much clearer and invites many other demons in.

The same principle is at work here. In this parable, the cleaning up of the living space could be understood as exercising reason to gain a better understanding of self and the world. But reason alone is not enough. Reason alone brought us the Enlightenment and reason alone brought us Nietzsche’s “Death of God.” Reason alone cannot overcome nihilism, so be wary of putting all your chips on reason alone.

---

If you enjoyed this piece, please leave a LIKE and SUBSCRIBE.

For 15% off NicNac nicotine lozenges, use code AF15XSAVE15 at nicnac.com/drmonzo.