Lynsy Le

Profressor Tada

Philos 1

Sep. 9 2024

In the Euthyphro, Socrates questions whether something is pious because the gods
command it or whether the gods command it because it is pious. How might this
dilemma relate to the question of whether laws are just because they are enacted by
political authority, or whether political authority enacts laws because they are just?

The Dilemma of Euthyphro in Political Context

The dilemma of Euthyphro is a dialogue between Socrates and Euthypro where

Socrates questions how one determines whether or not something is pious. The

dilemma questions if piety is determined by how the gods favor it or if it is favored by the

gods because it is inherently moral. When applying the Euthyphro dilemma to gods, the

dilemma has no inherent right or wrong answer because gods symbolize virtue. Even

though Socrates mentions that their values can be contradictory, gods typically provide

ethical justifications that underscore their arguments. In a modern political context,

though, this dilemma translates to whether laws are just because authority enacts them

or if they enact laws because they are just. How can we be sure that the people in

authority will uphold a righteous jurisdiction? I believe that political authority should

enact laws because they are independently just and not determined simply because

they are coming from an authoritative power.

Consider whether laws are just or not because political authority enacts them in a

modern democracy. Elected officials must share ethical principles that align with the
voters who put them in office. People anticipate that such morals will reflect in the

policies implemented by the political authority. The law’s equitability depends on

whether the people affected feel that it aligns with their moral compass. This alignment

is not determined by every individual's personal morality but collectively by society's

understanding of what is right or wrong. This system bases itself on whether laws

benefit the general welfare and not the politicians' personal gains. This perspective

rejects the idea that laws are only just when enacted, as certain laws are expected by

society, not blindly following the person commanding them. Modern democracies allow

people to criticize and determine who holds political authority, but this is not the same

across all political institutions.

In a dictatorship, the act of criticizing higher institutions typically gets suppressed, giving

those in high positions much more authoritative power. Dictatorships often enforce laws

that reflect their own motives. If laws are just enacted solely by authority, there is no

obligation for the person enforcing them to uphold any ethical standards. Laws and

regulations become arbitrary and serve the common good only if the person in power

chooses to do so. For example, imagine a lawmaker who signs a policy requiring

everyone to donate a dollar at least once a week to the lawmaker. The law is

considered just simply because the lawmaker dictated it, but it serves only the

lawmaker’s personal interests. The belief that laws are only enacted when enacted

strips civilians of inherent freedoms and rights such as freedom of speech or self-

autonomy. Society will be dominated by authoritative power and have the freedom to

discard any moral or ethical standards because there is no one to hold the authoritative

power accountable.
It is widely understood that typically humans have intrinsic values and unchanging

morals that are used to shape human behavior and interaction. That is why laws and

regulations should be contingent on such shared values. There is no reason why,

simply because someone is in an authoritative position that they enforce laws that

diverge from these ethical standards and expect people to adhere without

question.When those in power make laws that reflect society’s mutual beliefs, the

people are more likely to comply as they understand why the law was created. For

example, we as a society understand that homicide is unethical, so if a law is

implemented that punishes those who commit murder, people will abide and even foster

trust in those who enforce the law. An unjust law, though, like requiring a wife to

completely obey her husband, violates one’s inherent right to self-autonomy, and there

is no ethical principle that constitutes the creation of that law. Laws should be created

independently of one’s personal beliefs, as it can skew the effects of the law,

disproportionality affecting one social group more than the other. Laws that are just in

themselves recognize that every individual has an intrinsic value that should be

appreciated and protected by the law. In regards to Euthyphro, he claims that piety is

determined by the divine will of the gods, but this is not applicable to modern-day

society. Jurisdiction consists of other people and no divine beings, so how can one be

certain that there is absence of corruption by power through their decision-making? It

was also mentioned that even gods contradicted and argued with other gods, so what

was deemed right or wrong was always wavering. That is why there are universal

principles like fairness and rationality to ensure the law alone stands as ethical and just,

independent from those who enact it.

is “just” in various political debates. Society is typically split between two sides of

political discourse, making it difficult to determine whether some laws are completely

fair. There are conflicting views that can deter the political authority from enacting the

law. What might seem just and fair to some can be immoral to others. This is

exemplified in Euthyphro when Euthphyro prosecuting his father; while this might seem

fair to Zeus, who did the same, Cronos disagrees. A modern-day example of this ethical

disagreement is abortion rights. While many people agree that forcing an individual to

perceive an unwanted pregnancy as being in violation of one’s autonomy, many also

feel that removing a fetus is considered murder. That is why it is imperative that the

distribution of power be spread to the people through voting, as laws holistically affect

everyone in society. Everyone has different views on what is considered moral in these

complex ethical matters and should be heard.

When using the euthyphro dilemma to mirror current law processes in current political

society, it reveals the complexities of laws being just because they are enacted or if they

are enacted because they are just. In jurisdictions where justness is dependent on its

enactment, it can lead to unchecked dominance and laws that are self-serving.

Societies’s inherent freedoms and morals should not be compromised by such arbitrary

laws. In order to create laws that protect everyone’s individual rights, lawmakers must

make efforts to create regulations separate from personal bias and rely on the

fundamental principles of justice.