In Plato’s “Euthyphro,” Socrates asks whether something is pious because the gods love it or whether the gods love it because it is pious. The term pious can be translated to mean religious correctness or holiness. It means narrowly the act of doing and knowing what is right in religious settings. It can be taken to mean being a good person or righteousness. As opposed to Euthyphro, Socrates uses the broader sense of the word where he is interested in moral living. This statement, also known as the Euthyphro dilemma, has a strong inclination towards religion which can be interpreted to mean whether God commands something morally good because of its goodness or if something is morally good because God commands it. In Plato’s discussion, the question becomes problematic in philosophical and theological circles since it portrays a false dilemma.
In this dilemma, Socrates and Euthyphro discuss the nature of piety, whereas Euthyphro is that the pious is similar to that which the gods love. However, Socrates finds it problematic and argues that the gods can disagree on what is pious and what is not. The argument leads to revising the definition, making piety mean something that all gods unanimously love. Socrates poses whether they love pious because of its nature or whether it is pious because the gods love it. It leads to the argument that the gods love it because it is pious. Therefore, it does not mean that pious is pious because the gods love it. However, if both statements were true, they could result in a vicious cycle meaning that the gods love the pious because of its nature and that the pious is the way it is because the gods love it. According to Socrates, it means that the pious do not necessarily represent something loved by the gods. The thing that makes something loved by the gods is because they love it. The argument held by Euthyphro does provide any explanations concerning the nature of the pious but rather its quality.
This dilemma applies to philosophical and religious thinking, where it is generally agreed that anything that God wills is good. However, the question still lingers whether something is good because God wills it or whether He wills it because it is just and good. It brings in the idea of whether goodness and justice are arbitrary or part and parcel of the eternal truths of how things are supposed to be. Theologians and philosophers have dealt with this dilemma, arguing that God will do something right because it is right. It can mean several things ranging from rationality, intellect, reality, and objectivity (Lumen). The view is that some actions may be wrong or right in themselves without the will of God. In certain respects, it also means that God does not control things such as lying or injustices. In this sense, some things are right or wrong because of their nature and others because of the will of God. Therefore, there is the supposition that God cannot change some things because it is their nature to be the way they are.
The question by Socrates has implications for the notion of piety and how it is to be understood. The term usually means reverence or godliness for God. Individuals showing great devotion to the Almighty through religion are called pious. Socrates’ statement has greatly impacted the question of righteousness and understanding. He rejected Euthyphro’s definition of the word, which stated that it defined what is dear to the gods. He argued that the definition was vague and did not properly explain what piety was because the gods are not unified and beyond understanding.
It means, therefore, that there is no set standard on what they hold dear. The gods do not determine righteousness because some are unjust to other people and are not always in agreement. It means that what one God finds good can be translated as bad by another god. The difference of opinion among the gods has greatly changed the meaning of purity. It can no longer be regarded as one found good by the gods but one whose nature is good. The difference in opinion by the goods has brought about discord and are at odds with each other. Therefore, the gods cannot agree on holiness and represent what is dear to the gods.
In conclusion, the question by Socrates as to whether something is pious because the gods love it or whether the gods love it because it is pious is problematic. On the one hand, there is the argument that the gods have no control over something that is right or wrong and are usually not in agreement. The question has implications on piety in that it rules out the possibility of purity being dear to the gods. The differences in opinion make it difficult to regard different situations in the same manner. Therefore, it is difficult for piety to gain the acceptance of all gods since they are not always in agreement.
References
Lumen. Euthyprhro Dilemma.