The Euthyphro, like other Platonic dialogues, seeks to uncover the definition of a virtue. In its case, the virtue is piety. In the end, the dialogue fails to uncover this definition, rendering an impression of incompleteness. On account of the dialogue’s dual effect – the presentation of Socrates’ spirit as well as the Greeks’ inability to define piety – explanations for its incompleteness often place too much emphasis on Socrates and, as a result, fail to unearth its true genesis. Some students argue, for example, that the failure to define piety is induced by the non-existence of the Gods, which they declare Socrates implied through out his life. Hence arises the purpose of this interpretation: to demonstrate, by shifting emphasis to the development of the dialogue, that its failure to define piety originates from the mistaken presupposition that doctrines – systematic explications of religious beliefs – existed within the ritual religions of the ancient Greeks. Since these religions did not contain doctrines, the presupposition lead the search for a definition of piety where none existed, ultimately terminating in an incomplete dialogue. To corroborate this, this essay will trace the development of the dialogue to the presupposition and, therewith, demonstrate its influence in shaping the dialogue’s failure to define piety. The characters in the dialogue are Euthyphro and Socrates, who meet at the Porch of the King Archon. After a request by Socrates, Euthyphro states that his purpose at the court is to prosecute his father for murder. This stuns Socrates, since the ritual Greek religion of the household – in which paternal figures are regarded as family priests – considered turning against one’s father a major act of impiety. In return, Euthyphro remarks that offenders should be punished regardless of who they are, since not doing so makes the pollution ...
