Euthyphro’s first and third suggestion on the form of piety poses a problem for Socrates. A form is something that distinguishes one thing from another; piousness just like anything else has a form. In Socrates’ debate with Euthyphro, he looks for the form of piety, something that can separate pious from impious actions. Socrates is a Natural Law Theorist, laws regarding what is and what is ought to be; he wants some feature of piety that will allow him to pick out pious acts, that is not shared by impious acts, and that makes the action in question pious. Euthyphro has difficulty defining what is pious and what is not because, as it becomes clear from the whole discussion with Socrates, he does not have a clear idea of what it is himself, although he claims to do so.

In his first suggestion on the nature of piety, he presents the case of a certain group of individuals, particularly lawmen, to which he also belongs. For them, Euthyphro claims, it would be pious, or holy, to prosecute “wrongdoers or those guilty of any other offense…be they one’s father or mother or anyone else whatever” (Ethics 7-8). On the other hand, it would be impious

understanding is that Socrates is not simply exposing his line of reasoning as faulty, but also is trying to show him that the answer lies elsewhere, namely in the particular nature of things that are pious. He questions Euthyphro’s theory by asking if something is pious because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is pious. Socrates’ further attempts to find the form of piety confuses Euthyphro to a point where he can’t understand what he was arguing about in the first place. He doesn’t comprehend the distinction between something being pious because it’s loved by the gods or the gods loving it because it is pious.

, or unholy, to hold back because of reservations brought on by ties of relations or friendship. Socrates does not dispute Euthyphro’s duty to do so, but points out to the latter that his suggestion is no more than an example of a pious action, and not very clear one as well. Euthyphro’s example of what is pious does not give a basis for future interpretation of what piousness is. It deviates from the form of this term, and doesn’t explain how to distinguish it for the future. For example if someone asks you what is ice cream, and as a response you say it is something that is liked by many people, you are not defining ice cream. Many people like many things, for example many people like pizza. How will that person be able to differentiate ice cream from pizza just by that explanation. For this reason Socrates was unsatisfied by an example of piety. He needed a more precise description to answer his question.

While Socrates is looking for a way to tell apart right from wrong, pious from impious actions, there is not even a hint of general explanation in Euthyphro’s first suggestion. The form of piety is important to know. How do u know that murder is wrong unless u know what wrong is. A form of something is that which makes it what it is which separates it from what it’s not. It would be illogical to presume that the only way to show piety is to

Some topics in this essay:
Law Theorist, Command Theorist, Moreover Euthyphro’s, Using Euthyphro’s, Ancient Greek, Suggestion Euthyphro’s, Socrates’ Euthyphro’s, gods love, Command Theory, pious gods, form piety, ice cream, nature piety, socrates’ argument, pious impious, Divine Command, Natural Law, suggestion form piety, euthyphro’s third, love pious, third suggestion, gods love pious, euthyphro’s third suggestion, pious impious actions, humans impossible determine,