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.