Comparing Justice In Oresteia, Euthyphro, And The Republic

The texts of The Oresteia, Euthyphro, and The Republic of Plato all have strong underlying themes of piety as it relates to justice. The definition of piety, does not remain static, but rather has a fluid quality that allows it to change over time. When considering the three works in chronological order, it is possible to realize a change in the definition of justice from a definition closely related to piety to a more censored version of justice. As the society and culture of the Greeks change and the people become less reliant on the gods, the definition of piety as it governs justice shifts from the divine to the individual.

In the early years of Greek culture, the people relied strongly on mythology. The presence of fate and curses take

the responsibility of morality off the actions of the individual and put it on pleasing the gods. The presence of mythology allowed for a separation of the person and the actions. Actions were not pious or evil in themselves; the virtue of an act was based on how pleasing it was to the gods. Murder was deemed acceptable during these times at the request of a god, as shown in The Oresteia. When the Furies confront Apollo saying “You commanded the guest to kill his mother” Apollo replies simply, “What of it”, which indicates the lack of severity in what should be a heinous crime (200-201). Orestes is deemed clean again, even after the murder of his mother when Apollo “ordered him on, to my house, for purging”, which again illustrates that the effect of the action depends on the favor of the gods (202). This world creates a reality where pleasing the gods is paramount. In our world today, virtue is grounded in the actions we complete, and whether these actions in themselves are good or bad. In the early world of the Greeks ruled by gods, a virtuous and pious man did as the gods pleased. Virtue came not from the actions, but the consequences of the actions, and how they were received by the deities.
Justice was reserved for those who did not please the gods, despite their actions.

The Furies focus on justice in a simple manner, as illustrated by their statement: “Matricides: we drive them from their houses” (208). Orestes killed his mother, which elevates the crime and “break(s) the god’s first law” (170). Justice, to the Furies, means that punishment must prevail for an evil deed, saying, “you’ll give me blood for blood, you must” (262). Apollo, however claims that Orestes’ actions occurred because he was both avenging his father’s death and following the will of a god, since Apollo himself “commanded him to avenge his father” (201). The Furies’ definition of justice primarily is built on the action itself, whereas Apollo’s definition is more closely related to piety: justice is obeying the god’s will. Orestes situation can be measured through either lens: it is just because he avenges his father’s death and observes the gods orders, or unjust because he commits murder, specifically the murder of his own blood. Justice and piety become difficult to achieve simultaneously for humans in a world where gods are wrathful, and following the will of the gods and being pious often means killing another human unjustly. Athena simply frames the situation saying, “Two sides are here” meaning the different definitions of justice are oppose each other (440). The Oresteia in its entirety is fueled by the conflict of the earliest form of justice, the form similar to piety, beginning to

change.
Justice shifts from being an external force—a whim of the gods—to becoming intentional and internal to the people when Athena “found(ed) a tribunal…for all time to come” (599). Athenians now are responsible for their own fates, deciding what is right and what is wrong. This shift marks the beginning of the diminished role of the gods in Athenian culture. Piety remains central to the Athenians and their court system, but not piety as defined by the early Greeks when gods reigned supreme. The gods influence and power in this new worldview is moderated, but they still have a presence and are worthy of respect. Consequently, the definition of piety morphs from what the gods demand to what the gods see as good and right. Euthyphro brings his father to court because he believes “the pious is to do what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer” (5d). Similarly, the charges Meletus brings against Socrates relate to Socrates’s perceived disrespect of the gods, saying he “create(s) new gods while not believing in the old gods” (3b). The prevalence of piety and the strength of the gods influence declined as the culture developed from the time of The Oresteia writings. Plato shows the advancement of justice away from piety stating concerns that Euthyphro views piety and justice too similarly. Plato is quick to emphasize that piety is closely involved with following the gods, who tend to exhibit behavior that even Athenians in the time period of Euthyphro would agree is contrary to justice.