Socrates was being held on charges of impiety and Euthyphro was currently prosecuting his own father for murder charges. However, Socrates points out the fact that the act of prosecuting one’s own father was impious. Euthyphro simply replies that he has a clear understanding as what is pious and impious and stating that what he is doing is pious because of the sin his father had committed. Murdering someone showed a high level of impiety, and that action needs to be punished. This dilemma then leads for Socrates and Euthyphro to discuss how an action or object becomes pious or impious. Along with the definition of pious versus impious, the fact that the two are polar opposite are talked about. They state that there are no gray areas, just right and wrong, black and …show more content…
I believe that you cannot assume that they free from mistakes, and thus, they can label something as being pious when it truly isn’t. As we have learned from past readings, the gods are not perfect and commit impiety just as much as humans. Throughout all of our readings, there is constant killing, thievery, and lying done amongst the gods. As far as we are concerned, all of those acts are pure evil and can be assumed as something bad. If gods truly knew everything that is right and wrong, why would they ever commit any sin? This disputes the argument that there are no gray areas when it comes to piety. I believe that things are only labeled as pious because a god says it is. They are not ever knowing and make mistakes in judgement