 
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >5< | 6 | 7
Soc. Well, but speaking of men, Euthyphro, did you ever hear any one
arguing that a murderer or any sort of evil-doer ought to be let off?
Euth. I should rather say that these are the questions which they
are always arguing, especially in courts of law: they commit all sorts
of crimes, and there is nothing which they will not do or say in their
own defence.
Soc. But do they admit their guilt, Euthyphro, and yet say that they
ought not to be punished?
Euth. No; they do not.
Soc. Then there are some things which they do not venture to say and
do: for they do not venture to argue that the guilty are to be
unpunished, but they deny their guilt, do they not?
Euth. Yes.
Soc. Then they do not argue that the evil-doer should not be
punished, but they argue about the fact of who the evil-doer is, and
what he did and when?
Euth. True.
Soc. And the gods are in the same case, if as you assert they
quarrel about just and unjust, and some of them say while others
deny that injustice is done among them. For surely neither God nor man
will ever venture to say that the doer of injustice is not to be
punished?
Euth. That is true, Socrates, in the main.
Soc. But they join issue about the particulars-gods and men alike;
and, if they dispute at all, they dispute about some act which is
called in question, and which by some is affirmed to be just, by
others to be unjust. Is not that true?
Euth. Quite true.
Soc. Well then, my dear friend Euthyphro, do tell me, for my
better instruction and information, what proof have you that in the
opinion of all the gods a servant who is guilty of murder, and is
put in chains by the master of the dead man, and dies because he is
put in chains before he who bound him can learn from the
interpreters of the gods what he ought to do with him, dies
unjustly; and that on behalf of such an one a son ought to proceed
against his father and accuse him of murder. How would you show that
all the gods absolutely agree in approving of his act? Prove to me
that they do, and I will applaud your wisdom as long as I live.
Euth. It will be a difficult task; but I could make the matter
very dear indeed to you.
Soc. I understand; you mean to say that I am not so quick of
apprehension as the judges: for to them you will be sure to prove that
the act is unjust, and hateful to the gods.
Euth. Yes indeed, Socrates; at least if they will listen to me.
Soc. But they will be sure to listen if they find that you are a
good speaker. There was a notion that came into my mind while you were
speaking; I said to myself: "Well, and what if Euthyphro does prove to
me that all the gods regarded the death of the serf as unjust, how
do I know anything more of the nature of piety and impiety? for
granting that this action may be hateful to the gods, still piety
and impiety are not adequately defined by these distinctions, for that
which is hateful to the gods has been shown to be also pleasing and
dear to them." And therefore, Euthyphro, I do not ask you to prove
this; I will suppose, if you like, that all the gods condemn and
abominate such an action. But I will amend the definition so far as to
say that what all the gods hate is impious, and what they love pious
or holy; and what some of them love and others hate is both or
neither. Shall this be our definition of piety and impiety?
Euth. Why not, Socrates?
Soc. Why not! certainly, as far as I am concerned, Euthyphro,
there is no reason why not. But whether this admission will greatly
assist you in the task of instructing me as you promised, is a
matter for you to consider.
Euth. Yes, I should say that what all the gods love is pious and
holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious.
Soc. Ought we to enquire into the truth of this, Euthyphro, or
simply to accept the mere statement on our own authority and that of
others? What do you say?
Euth. We should enquire; and I believe that the statement will stand
the test of enquiry.
Soc. We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The
point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious
or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because
it is beloved of the gods.
Euth. I do not understand your meaning, Socrates.
Soc. I will endeavour to explain: we, speak of carrying and we speak
of being carried, of leading and being led, seeing and being seen. You
know that in all such cases there is a difference, and you know also
in what the difference lies?
Euth. I think that I understand.
Soc. And is not that which is beloved distinct from that which
loves?
Euth. Certainly.
Soc. Well; and now tell me, is that which is carried in this state
of carrying because it is carried, or for some other reason?
Euth. No; that is the reason.
Soc. And the same is true of what is led and of what is seen?
Euth. True.
Soc. And a thing is not seen because it is visible, but
conversely, visible because it is seen; nor is a thing led because
it is in the state of being led, or carried because it is in the state
of being carried, but the converse of this. And now I think,
Euthyphro, that my meaning will be intelligible; and my meaning is,
that any state of action or passion implies previous action or
passion. It does not become because it is becoming, but it is in a
state of becoming because it becomes; neither does it suffer because
it is in a state of suffering, but it is in a state of suffering
because it suffers. Do you not agree?
Euth. Yes.
Soc. Is not that which is loved in some state either of becoming
or suffering?
Euth. Yes.
Soc. And the same holds as in the previous instances; the state of
being loved follows the act of being loved, and not the act the state.
Euth. Certainly.
Soc. And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro: is not piety,
according to your definition, loved by all the gods?
Euth. Yes.
Soc. Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?
Euth. No, that is the reason.
Soc. It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?
Euth. Yes.
Soc. And that which is dear to the gods is loved by them, and is
in a state to be loved of them because it is loved of them?
Euth. Certainly.
Soc. Then that which is dear to the gods, Euthyphro, is not holy,
nor is that which is holy loved of God, as you affirm; but they are
two different things.
Euth. How do you mean, Socrates?
Soc. I mean to say that the holy has been acknowledge by us to be
loved of God because it is holy, not to be holy because it is loved.
Euth. Yes.
Soc. But that which is dear to the gods is dear to them because it
is loved by them, not loved by them because it is dear to them.
Euth. True.
Soc. But, friend Euthyphro, if that which is holy is the same with
that which is dear to God, and is loved because it is holy, then
that which is dear to God would have been loved as being dear to
God; but if that which dear to God is dear to him because loved by
him, then that which is holy would have been holy because loved by
him. But now you see that the reverse is the case, and that they are
quite different from one another. For one (theophiles) is of a kind to
be loved cause it is loved, and the other (osion) is loved because
it is of a kind to be loved. Thus you appear to me, Euthyphro, when
I ask you what is the essence of holiness, to offer an attribute only,
and not the essence-the attribute of being loved by all the gods.
But you still refuse to explain to me the nature of holiness. And
therefore, if you please, I will ask you not to hide your treasure,
but to tell me once more what holiness or piety really is, whether
dear to the gods or not (for that is a matter about which we will
not quarrel) and what is impiety?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >5< | 6 | 7
| People: | |
| Places: | |
| Things: | |
| Times: | |
|
|
