Socrates Piety

Within the transitional moments of a non-entity acquiring autonomy an elusive order is conceptualized whose function serves to define two states of moral existence: one that is holy and one that is unholy. Its presence as an indistinguishable construct contradicts its unambiguous claim to perpetual immutability, for it is the epitome of logic. It is the principle of rationale. And narrow is the spectrum invoked by rationale when deciding one’s place in either moral absolutes. For this reason, the logical probability is that there is no higher celestial ordinance determining morality. Holiness is its own standard, you are holy or you are unholy.

Amidst a historic recording influenced by an exchange between Greek philosopher Socrates and Instructor of moral Euthyphro, Socrates asks “Is not piety in every action always the same? And impiety, again- is it not always the opposite of piety, and also the same within itself, having, as impiety, one notion which includes whatever is impious?” (Plato,

He changes his strategy, Socrates does not ask Euthyphro to define piety, instead asks how is an unholy action deemed bad, how is a holy action deemed “good”? Euthyphro’s answer is that an action is good if the Gods approve of it. His answer is now a gold mine for Socrates, who proceeds to present his case by stating that the Gods approve of things that are good and disapprove of things that are not good. His cogent reasoning is compelling enough to cause Euthyphro to quickly agree, he might not have agreed so readily had he understood the extent of what that meant. Very pleased with himself, Socrates then asks whether the Gods love what is pious, or if something pious because it is loved by the Gods. This section of the dialog ends with Euthyphro admitting truth to both, which is not possible. Euthyphro does not understand that the state of a thing does not change what that thing