Violence in Plato: The Euthyphro In the dialogue of the Euthyphro, Plato depicts an exchange between the titular young, aristocratic man who has decided to turn his father in for manslaughter and the Greek philosopher Socrates. According to Euthyphro, his father left a slave in a ditch to die when the slave was accused of killing another slave, causing the slave to die of exposure. Euthyphro defends his actions as pious while Socrates reacts with incredulity. This suggests that although the primary impetus of the dialogue is a condemnation of impious actions, Plato does not give much weight to the violent death of the slave. Euthyphro is portrayed as ignorant because he cannot come up with an acceptable definition of piety to Socrates and little regard is given to the death of the slave which prompted the drama to take place. Violence (or anti-violence) is not the primary preoccupation of the dialogue.

Socrates first claims that Euthyphro's defense of piety is tautological. Euthyphro then provides another defense of his actions, namely that piety is what is pleasing to the gods. To turn in a man who has committed a violent action is pious, suggests Euthyphro, even if that man is his own father. Socrates disagrees, pointing...

Euthyphro counters that some actions are so innately abhorrent, like that of his father's actions towards the slave, the gods must agree that they are wrong but Socrates does not believe that all cases of supposedly unjustified homicide are so clear-cut. Given that Socrates largely functions as Plato's mouthpiece in the dialogue, this suggests that Plato does not believe in nonviolence and thinks that some violent actions are justified (although it never becomes clear over the course of the dialogue why the father exposed the slave and simply allowed the slave to die without trial). The death of the slave is seen as a relatively inconsequential action over the course of the dialogue. Socrates is more focused upon defining piety (and the relationship of Euthyphro to his father in terms of filial piety) than seeking justice for the slave.
The central dispute is whether what is pious is what is loved by the gods or the gods love things which are pious. There is a distinction, given that the gods often seem to love things which are not pious like sacrifices in their honor vs. loving things which seem innately good. Does the love of the gods make an action pious or is the action itself morally justified by its innate qualities and is therefore pious? This idea of the gods rendering even morally questionable actions pious with their love could be used to justify a variety of violent actions, including the death penalty or suicide. If the ultimate standard of piety is merely that an action is loved by the gods, not that it is pious in…