start reading Plato's Euthyphro
or click a link to select a section

Setting the scene and character development. We meet Socrates, Euthyphro, the absent Meletus (Socrates’ prosecutor) and – stretching a point - the citizens of Athens. Socrates explains what his case is about.

Euthyphro explains about his own case. The question: ought a son to prosecute a father? How to know? Euthyphro’s first stab at an account: families ties don’t bind in these matters.

Socrates enrolls as Euthyphro’s pupil. What is holiness [hosion]? Speculation about the nature of the gods. A condition on possible answers: not just examples; a general ‘form’ or ‘idea’ [eidos; idea] must be produced.

Euthyphro’s first attempt at definition: what the gods love is holy; what is unloved by them is unholy. An awkward consequence: some things will be both holy and unholy.

Euthyphro: no one denies that unjust killings must be punished. Socrates: but there is disagreement about what counts as 'unjust'. How does Euthyphro know what the gods will make of his particular case? And, again: what is the definition of ‘holiness’. Will it be: ‘what all the gods love’?

Euthyphro’s new definition: ‘what all the gods love is holy; what they all hate is unholy.’ Now a question: ‘is the holy loved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is loved by the god?’ An explanation of the question follows (considerably more confusing than the question itself.) And an answer: holiness causes god love, not vice versa. Therefore, Euthyphro’s definition cannot be correct; it implies a contradiction: if A is prior to B, and A = B; then (by substitution), B is prior to A.

Euthyphro’s claims are like statues of Daedalus, running around in circles. A fresh start: all that is holy is necessarily just. But: is all that is just holy? Comparison with the case of fear and shame. Holiness is only one part of the domain of justice. But which part?

Holiness is the part of justice concerned with the care of the gods. But what sort of ‘care’ do the gods require? And why? Shrewd consideration of the balance of trade sustaining the divine service industry. Return to the proposition that ‘what the gods love is pious’. Inconclusive conclusion.