Political philosophy: core concepts and theories

¶ … piety in Plato's Euthyphro

Euthyphro is a young man who is turning in his own father for committing the murder of a slave. Euthyphro first responds to Socrates that piety is defined as 'what he [Euthyphro] is doing in a tautological fashion (Ross 2012). Eventually, when pressed, Euthyphro creates his real first definition, stating that piety is what is pleasing to the gods. However, Socrates points out that what is pleasing to the gods is very ambiguous. The Greek gods often contradict themselves in terms of the values that they celebrate and according to mythology are constantly at war with one another. "Prosecuting his father may have been pleasing to Zeus, who overthrew and imprisoned his father, but not pleasing to Ouranos or Kronos, who were both victims of their sons. Euthyphro's actions would thus be hated by the older gods, even if loved by Zeus" (Ross 2012). And Socrates also expresses skepticism that such tales can be taken on their face value. Euthyphro responds that piety is what all of the gods approve of, which is to punish injustice.

The central question of the dialogue is: "Is piety caused by the loving of the gods, or is the love of the gods itself caused by the nature of piety" (Ross 2012). Euthyphro at first suggests that loving the gods causes pious actions. But Socrates demonstrates that this is not the case. The gods, after all, may demand certain arbitrary things that do not, on their surface, seem pious. One good example of this is demanding burnt offerings as sacrifices in proof of their greatness. There is nothing particularly moral about killing an animal, but in the Greek tradition, the gods demand it. Even in our own tradition, it could be countered that the demand by God to obey certain ritual commands, such as keeping kosher or observing the Sabbath by resting are not innately good, but rather have taken on the veneer of goodness because they are said to be blessed by the divine.

The opposite of what is initially suggested by Euthyphro is that the gods love what is pious because these things are good, versus demanding certain actions which are then labeled pious. This changes the emphasis of religion from ritual actions such as sacrifice to ethical actions. However, monotheistic religions consider such an assertion quite problematic, because it makes the human actor the arbitrator of value rather than the divine being. "If God is the Creator of absolutely everything, then He would be the Creator of all standards of value also... Whatever He thinks, wants, or does, it is simply good by definition, regardless of what it is" (Ross 2012). We may view the destruction of cities to be immoral, but if God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah and all God does is moral, then this becomes a moral action if we believe everything willed by God is moral. If we appoint ourselves the arbiter of moral actions and say that wholesale destruction is evil, then we are forced to read the Bible and say that God committed an immoral action.

Later Christian interpreters of the Bible attempted to extricate themselves from this monotheistic paradox by interpreting aspects of the Bible in a symbolic fashion, to reconcile apparently contradictory aspects of the text. Or, some simply assume that anything God has said to have done is moral, regardless of what that may be, although most thinking people find this kind of intellectual conformity to be intolerable and even dangerous (Ross 2012). Euthyphro wrests himself out of his definitional problems by eventually defining piety as the 'care' of the gods, stating that while human beings must show care and respect to the gods (presumably by ritual means) they must also piously abide by the standards that govern behavior over human life. However, even this definition does not satisfy Socrates, because he cannot understand why the gods need such actions such as sacrifice, since they are omnipotent.