The Discussion on Euthypro

The argument lies on the conflicting definition that what all the gods’ love is pious and holy, and the opposite, which they all hate, is impious. The purification of this argument is on the definition that all that seems to be good are good and all that seems bad are bad. The definition struck its moment of difference during the definition of ‘carrying and being carried’. The writer argues that, the state of being loved follows the act of being loved, and not the act the state. This two phenomenon questions the state of a situation towards the act the state, and the definition of the premise becomes questionable.

The argument has the flaws when the writer differentiate the things that seems good, can only be uphold when the actors involved are doing the good, not merely in a state of good. The writer has also questions the essence of holiness, as not only a part of attribute but also on the nature of it. The conclusion of the argument is, we will always have difficulty in defining what is good through the definition of holiness or pity (morale judgments), when the truth is, the boundaries given by the impiety is not clear at all.

To view the complete discussion on Euthypro, please follow this link: