Pious or Impious

In Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates reveals a deep paradox that is at the center of the discourse of piousness and impiousness. His assertion that gods can be both loving and hateful of the same behaviors leads to the conclusion that these acts are both religious and irreligious, upends the conventional notion of divine command theory, and poses significant queries regarding the fundamentals of ethics. Then, the contradiction raises important issues regarding the nature of ethics, the connection between moral and divine values, and the premises of our understanding of religion.

Socrates' paradox forces the reader to reconsider the nature of divine morality. One of the most significant ramifications of Socrates' conundrum when viewed in this light is that it calls into question the conventional wisdom surrounding the doctrine of divine command. According to this theory, morality derives exclusively from divine precepts. A basic flaw in this perspective is shown by Socrates' argument, which emphasizes how arbitrary it is to define morality in accordance with the gods' shifting whims. It begs the question of whether morality is up to the whims of the supernatural if gods can be both fond of and hateful of the same conduct. This challenges the stability and reliability of the moral framework based solely on divine command and forces us to consider whether morality can be based solely on divine commands, as Euthyphro initially suggested “What is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious” (Plato, 2002). If gods can have contradictory stances on the same actions, this casts doubt on the consistency of their ethical judgments. This situation also has a great impact on the structure of social order. It is challenging to comprehend what the basis for truth was in the courts of that era given polytheism and various views. Injustice will inevitably arise affecting the lives and penalties of many people as a result of the discrepancy in this problem. These findings all point to two distinct queries: It calls into doubt the omniscience of gods if they are capable of holding divergent opinions regarding the same deeds. Beyond this theological context, this argument also extends to broader ethical debates, prompting us to consider whether an objective standard of morality exists independent of divine commands, and leads to the exploration of alternative ethical theories such as moral realism.

The entire conversation raises questions about what constitutes piousness and impiousness, highlighting the limitations in coming up with a meaningful definition for either of these concepts. In fact, the idea underlying the paradox is that the only basis to consider in defining morality is whether there is divine approval. Given the prevalence of polytheistic religious beliefs during that era, it is necessary to consider whether or not the various deities' interpretations define morality. Even though monotheistic religions are more common today, discussions about this matter are still ongoing. This shows that the real source of the problem is not what the gods say, but the self-interest in human nature. The impulse to interpret circumstances in a way that serves one's own interests arises from a sense of self-interest. A person loses willpower and starts acting in his own self-interest if he is unable to control thoughts that could be detrimental to both himself and society. Some instances of this are the conclusion Euthyphro made when suing his father, justifying himself by drawing comparisons between his actions and what Zeus did to his father (Plato, 2002), disregarding the other gods, and Euthyphro's incapacity to stray too far from his original idea despite Socrates's extremely complex dialogue. The fact that so many believers in the modern world don't read the books they believe in, go through life not even knowing what they believe, and often base their behavior on religion, which not only weakens their perspective on the religion they believe in but also strengthens the idea that morality should not be determined solely by religious principles.

Even though all these years have passed, it is still not possible to give a clear answer to the question asked by Socrates about what is compatible with piety and what is not. It would be incorrect, though, to seek the solution to this dilemma just in religion or in a neutral assessment. It is possible for several gods to hold divergent opinions on the same issue, for one god's words to be misunderstood, and even for society to interpret an objective approach differently. Here, it's all about the posture a person adopts. No matter what religion, belief, or historical or contemporary legal system is in place, moral principles like empathy, tolerance, honesty, and polite behavior are universally accepted. If we could be consistent in these very basic emotions, leaving our interests aside as humanity, the world would be a completely different place.

Reference

Plato. (2002). Five Dialogues; Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.