Euthyphro Summary & Analysis

The opening passage sets up the premise of the dialogue. Socrates’s explanation that he is facing a charge of impiety for irreverence towards the gods indicates the socially accepted view of piety as something concerned with the gods. Euthyphro’s expression of surprise and sympathy with Socrates encourages the reader to engage similarly with Socrates’s plight of being charged with a crime for the mere act of talking freely. In doing calling the morality of Socrates’s free speech into question, Plato implicitly raises the question of whether acting piously really means conforming to what the gods deem is proper, or if there is a more universal definition for piety.

Euthyphro’s explanation of his legal case not only establishes Euthyphro’s concern with the concept of piety, it also raises vivid thought experiment designed to pique the reader’s curiosity and engagement with the dialogue. The situation concerning Euthyphro’s father and the two dead slaves is a moral conundrum: the modern reader is likely to oppose slavery in and of itself, and Euthyphro’s father was overly negligent, but the murderous slave was also in the wrong. This dilemma helps to convey the moral grey area of pious versus impious actions that Socrates hopes to help Euthyphro (and, thus, the reader) clarify through the dialogue. Having positioned both Socrates and Euthyphro as people who are concerned with the nature of piety, Plato is now drawing the reader into the inquiry as well—a strategy that is central to the Socratic method of inquiry in which all participants in the philosophical thought experiment play an active role.  

This passage sets up the dynamic of the Socratic method, in which Socrates will pose as the student (who will ask probing questions), and Euthyphro will pose as the local expert (who will communicate conventional views about piety). The reader can infer that Socrates, not Euthyphro, is the wise one in this situation, since he is only flattering Euthyphro by feigning ignorance. Socrates’s prompting of Euthyphro suggests that there is a core, universal nature of piety to be uncovered, but that this definition is not self-evident or easy to understand. One must be knowledgeable and wise to justify a clear distinction between pious and impious behavior.

It is clear from the way Socrates frames his question that he is looking for a universal definition of piety, as opposed to one that is logically inconsistent or dependent on certain scenarios.

Euthyphro’s explanation of piety reinforces to the reader his belief in a concept of piety that emulates the gods. This, however, is insufficient for Socrates since it does not provide a logically sound explanation of why piety is important—only that it should be arbitrarily emulated. The method of Socratic inquiry starts to unfold as Socrates points out the inconsistencies in Euthyphro’s definition, and directs Euthyphro’s attention (and, by extension, the reader’s) away from listing specific examples, and towards articulating a universal definition of piety.     

Euthyphro’s second definition again betrays his reliance on the gods when making sense of piety. Socrates’s questions direct Euthyphro (and, once again, the reader) toward a definition that is not only universal, but also unchanging (unlike the feelings of the gods). In doing so, he urges both Euthyphro and the reader to use logic to formulate their own definition, rather than relying on Socrates to give them an easy answer.

This passage informs the reader more explicitly that Socrates is in fact, taking on the role of the teacher in the conversation. Socrates’s flattery and Euthyphro’s vanity also expose to the reader that Euthyphro has not caught on to this yet when he articulates his third definition of piety as what all the gods love. The reader can infer that Euthyphro assumes Socrates has the answer and it is his job to guess correctly. However, under Socrates’s unique method of inquiry, he is more interested in Euthyphro acting as his own teacher and thereby reaching his own conclusion.

The central dilemma of the dialogue as posed by Socrates is designed to explicitly draw the reader in, allowing them to become actively participate alongside Euthyphro. The dilemma establishes Socrates’s view that the feelings of the gods are merely responses to piety, rather than a solid definition of the concept.  The true nature of piety, then, is unrelated to any being’s subjective feelings about what is pious and what is impious.

The use of the Daedalus metaphor establishes clearly to the reader that Euthyphro is confused, and Socrates is the one running circles around him. It also indicates that Socrates will not accept a definition for piety that simply circles around the gods’ feelings, wishes, or desires whilst obscuring what, exactly, makes them feel, wish, or desire as such. The Daedalus metaphor thus invokes the idea that the concept of piety must be knowable: it is something that can be pinned down and recognized.

Socrates’s dissection of Euthyphro’s fourth definition is a clear example of the kind of reasoned inquiry that Plato thinks will uncover the definition of piety. This passage exposes to the reader how easy it can be to slip into hubris against the gods. It exposes why a fear of irreverence might cause conventional views about piety to be insufficiently examined, and therefore, perhaps unjustified. It also reminds the reader that this sort of conversation, of collaboratively thinking clearly through concepts, is what caused Socrates to face charges in the first place. Plato thus invites skepticism from the reader about the charge of impiety that Socrates faces.

Euthyphro’s frustration indicates to the reader that his “expertise” about piety is not on solid ground, which is why Socrates draws again on the metaphor of Daedalus to remind the reader that Euthyphro is circling once again back to a baseless claim about the gods. In doing so, he points out the logical flaw in Euthyphro’s pattern of thought and thus holds the reader to the same standard, in an attempt to lead both Euthyphro and the reader to think more critically about what a universal definition of a concept should look like. Plato’s use of the Daedalus metaphor also reinforces Socrates’s view that the definition of piety must be knowable, and that this is incompatible with a conception of piety that relies on the gods, since humans cannot presume to know what the gods desire. 

Plato uses Euthyphro’s sudden departure and Socrates’s dissatisfaction to indicate that the nature of piety has not been uncovered, and to prompt the reader to take over the inquiring. The purpose of this dialogue, then, goes deeper than Euthyphro’s understanding of pious versus impious behavior—rather, Plato’s goal is to encourage the reader to engage in a Socratic inquiry of their own about the nature of piety. Only through this train of critical thought is it possible to formulate a universal definition, rather than one that is dependent upon subjective or unknowable opinions, like those of the gods. Plato’s use of humor through Euthyphro’s embarrassment reintroduces the idea that wisdom about the core nature of piety itself is required to make claims about pious and impious behavior, especially in a court of law.

Plato’s use of irony indicates his view that actions cannot be justified as pious without wisdom: a full understanding of the nature of piety. This is what Euthyphro—and here, by extension, Meletus—clearly lacks.