Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Socrates debates the essence of morality
24 April 2012

The scene of this dialogue is on the steps of the Athenian Courthouse (known as the King's Archon) as Socrates is preparing to answer the charges of being disrespectful to the gods and corrupting the youth. There is a discussion about this at the opening to this dialogue, however I will not go into too much detail as I will leave it for later commentaries to discuss (in particular the Apology, and also the book in which this dialogue is contained, the Last Days of Socrates). Rather, I will discuss the content of this dialogue, and also some of the nasty tricks that Socrates uses when discussing the issue of holiness with Euthyphro.

Now, apparently the name Euthyphro means' right-minded', though we must remember that in Greek, the prefix eu gives the word that it is attached to a good meaning. For instance, the word angelos' means messanger, and by adding eu to it (creating euangelos, from which our word evangelical comes from) means 'good messanger' (or good message). However, and I will not go too deep into this here, these days that word has lost its original meaning and tends to refer to somebody who is self-righteous and condemning. To be honest with you, a message that constantly tells us that we are sinners and destined to hell unless we bind ourselves to a particular church and its teaching is hardly a good message. As you will see, though, this will become important, but first, a bit more of a background.

It may appear that the only two people around would be Socrates and Euthyphro, but I do not believe that this is the case. Socrates was heading into court to answer his charges, and as such he is most likely being accompanied by his students. One of the things about his students is that they were here to learn, so it would be highly unlikely that they would have taken part in the discussion. They would be listening and watching. I guess a really good picture would be similar to Jesus and his disciples, though remember that when Jesus was led to his trial, while he went willingly, he was surrounded by enemies and not friends. Further, we can be assured that Plato, and possibly even Xenophon, would have been present simply because it is through these two individuals that we have first hand accounts of Socrates' trial.

Now, onto the Socratic method of argument. One of the reasons that we were taught this dialogue at university is because it is an excellent example of the Socratic method, and in many ways it is a method that is still used today. If you were to go and watch a trial in one of the common law countries, you will see lawyers, and in particular good lawyers, using this method to arrive, not so much at the truth, but at what they want to come out as the truth. While the opening and closing arguments are simply speeches, it is during examination of the witnesses that the ability to use the Socratic method is important. What is the Socratic method? It is simply by treating the person as an expert, and then using a series of questions to have them produce answers that you want. It is not simply asking questions, but asking the right questions, that is the key to mastering the Socratic method.

Now, as we read through this dialogue, we notice two important things. First of all Socrates never claims to be an expert. In fact (while not mentioned in this dialogue) his position is always one of ignorance. 'The only thing that I know is that I know nothing'. As he says to Euphythro, he is obviously the expert in morality, and in fact suggests that if Euphythro were to claim that Socrates was his student, then Milteus would not have a leg to stand on because it is clear, and well known, that Euphythro is an expert on morality.

The second thing that I noticed is Socrates' use of what we call faulty logic, namely he completely twists the argument around, getting an answer out of Euphythro before he even realises what he has said. An example would be 'all dogs have four legs, this dog has three legs, therefore it is not a dog'. What Socrates does is that he has Euphythro agree to a number of statements ('a led object is not a led object because it can be led, but because it is led; a carried object is not a carried object because it can be carried, but because we carry it; a seen object is not a seen object because it can be seen, but because we see it'), but then he twists them around to support his argument that a moral object is a moral object because it is loved, but because the God's love it. Though, when we are considering an object we must remember that an action is also seen as an object.

Now, the reason this discussion begins is because of the reason Euphythro is at court. What happened is that on his father's estate on the island of Naxos one of the day labourers go into a drunken brawl and killed a slave, so his father bound the day labourer, threw him into a ditch, and left him there until his could get word back from Athens to find out what to do with him. Now, travelling from Naxos to Athens and back again took a lot longer then than it did does (I'd say at most a week), so during that time the day labourer died. So, Euthyphro decides to prosecute his father for manslaughter (there was no such thing as a public prosecution in 5th century Athens), and the question that is raised is not whether his father did wrong (he clearly did) but whether it is right for Euthyphro to prosecute him at all. While my answer is yes, Socrates' answer is no, the reason being is that the respect that a son should have for his father should prevent him from acting in such a way. It was his father's decision to behave in this manner, and as such Euthyphro, as the son, should then be respecting his father's decision. It is not his role to step into the shoes of the day labourer and prosecute his father, despite there being nobody to actually prosecute the father on the day labourer's behalf.

Now, the translation that I read uses the word piety, however that word is incredibly misleading. Going to church and tithing, to us, is pious, and in fact the chief priests who called for Jesus' prosecution, were also pious, but that does not necessarily mean that their actions, as is outlined here, are beloved by God. Holiness is probably a better word, though Liddel and Scott translate the word osia as 'divine law'. I have used the word morality in this context, and will continue to do so, as I believe that this is probably the best term to use because it seems to define, from the context of the dialogue, as an action that is loved by the gods.

Now, unlike our monotheistic culture were we only have one god upon which to base the rightness of an action, Athens had multiple gods, meaning that the rightness of an action really comes down to which god considered the action right, and which ones did not, which created a much more relativistic and pluralistic society. However, Socrates narrows this down to being an action that all of the gods considered wrong (such as murder), and the discussion is narrowed to whether there are such actions, and whether they are relativistic or not. Socrates believes that there are, but then remember that Socrates technically only acknowledged one god. Further, most of the Greeks at this time did not really pay much attention to the actions of the gods and only referred to them when they wanted to win a particular argument. This does not mean that they were not religious, they were incredibly religious, it is just that their idea of morality was quite fluid. However, there were laws, such as murder, which simply could not be washed away.