Violence in Plato: Euthyphro

Violence in Plato: The Euthyphro

In the dialogue of the Euthyphro, Plato depicts an exchange between the titular young, aristocratic man who has decided to turn his father in for manslaughter and the Greek philosopher Socrates. According to Euthyphro, his father left a slave in a ditch to die when the slave was accused of killing another slave, causing the slave to die of exposure. Euthyphro defends his actions as pious while Socrates reacts with incredulity. This suggests that although the primary impetus of the dialogue is a condemnation of impious actions, Plato does not give much weight to the violent death of the slave. Euthyphro is portrayed as ignorant because he cannot come up with an acceptable definition of piety to Socrates and little regard is given to the death of the slave which prompted the drama to take place. Violence (or anti-violence) is not the primary preoccupation of the dialogue.

Socrates first claims that Euthyphro's defense of piety is tautological. Euthyphro then provides another defense of his actions, namely that piety is what is pleasing to the gods. To turn in a man who has committed a violent action is pious, suggests Euthyphro, even if that man is his own father. Socrates disagrees, pointing out that there are many gods and the various gods have shown different attitudes towards the same pious or impious acts. Euthyphro counters that some actions are so innately abhorrent, like that of his father's actions towards the slave, the gods must agree that they are wrong but Socrates does not believe that all cases of supposedly unjustified homicide are so clear-cut. Given that Socrates largely functions as Plato's mouthpiece in the dialogue, this suggests that Plato does not believe in nonviolence and thinks that some violent actions are justified (although it never becomes clear over the course of the dialogue why the father exposed the slave and simply allowed the slave to die without trial). The death of the slave is seen as a relatively inconsequential action over the course of the dialogue. Socrates is more focused upon defining piety (and the relationship of Euthyphro to his father in terms of filial piety) than seeking justice for the slave.

The central dispute is whether what is pious is what is loved by the gods or the gods love things which are pious. There is a distinction, given that the gods often seem to love things which are not pious like sacrifices in their honor vs. loving things which seem innately good. Does the love of the gods make an action pious or is the action itself morally justified by its innate qualities and is therefore pious? This idea of the gods rendering even morally questionable actions pious with their love could be used to justify a variety of violent actions, including the death penalty or suicide. If the ultimate standard of piety is merely that an action is loved by the gods, not that it is pious in and of itself (and therefore loved by the gods) then, for example, the act of the Greek General Agamemnon to sacrifice his daughter to get fair winds to get to Troy is a moral action since it was at the behest of the god Apollo. (Of course, the Greek myth about Troy also portrayed the gods as eternally at odds about which side should emerge victorious, so this once again highlights the problem of viewing the gods as a unified moral voice).

However, Socrates' initial shock at Euthyphro's action suggests that other moral factors than a horror of violence factor into Plato's equation of piety, although these are not specifically articulated in the dialogue. The Greeks placed a strong emphasis on filial piety (in other words, honoring one's father and mother) as a moral action. By this standard, Euthyphro's action is not pleasing to the gods. Theoretically, another citizen should bring to light the crime without Euthyphro's competing moral obligation towards his father. This is why, in Socrates' view, Euthyphro is inevitably morally compromised -- just like the gods' actions show conflicting ideas about the standards of moral piety, even when murder is involved, Euthyphro is faced with a complex double conundrum: he knows about the violent action committed by a family member, a family member he is supposed to honor. Given the Greek view of slavery as morally acceptable, however, and the fact that both Euthyphro and his father are free men, it is possible that his actions are seen as excessive and making an overt show of being moral, rather than actually being moral. After having another argument about another possible definition in the dialogue, the idea that piety is analogous to sacrifice, ritual and prayer (which Socrates views as problematic because this means that the gods are incomplete without human actions, denying their omnipotence), Socrates leaves for his own trial for impiety. The reader would know that this would mean that Socrates was departing for his own death, since his trial famously resulted in his condemnation by an Athenian jury for both impiety and corrupting the young.