#8211; because it has an intrinsic nature, untouched by the gods, that makes it worthy of love. This reply presupposes that doctrines exist within the ritual religions of the ancient Greeks, since this intrinsic nature would have to be measured against some predetermined standards to make it lovable. This arrangement of predetermined standards, however, did not exist in the ritual religions of the ancient Greeks, wherein the sole requirement was to perform rituals as well as sacrifices. Indeed, it exists in the monotheistic religions that began to spring up centuries later, which incorporated creedal books – e.g., the Bible and the Koran – to delineate such predetermined standards. In passing, one is tempted to ask: if a monotheistic God is the creator of absolutely everything, is He not also the creator of these predetermined standards, making piety whatever He arbitrarily determines, perhaps with no regard to goodness? Conversely, if He merely recognizes these standards – over which He has no command, – is he, indeed, the creator of everything? In any case, by presupposing the existence of predetermined standards within the ritual religions of the ancient Greeks, Euthyphro directs the search for a definition of piety where non exists. Consequently, Socrates points out that this assertion – that all the gods love piety because it is piety – destroys Euthyphro’s original definition – that piety is what all the god love – since, if all the gods love piety because of its intrinsic nature, piety can’t be pious because all the gods love it. Thus, the search moves on. Socrates raises the question: “Is all the just holy? Or is all the holy just, but not all the just holy – part of it holy, part something else?” (Plato, Euthyphro, 12a). Euthyphro replies that piety is the part of justice that ministers to the gods. Socrates then asks, what benefit does this mi...
