In Plato's "Euthyphro" (translated by F.J. Church), Socrates manages to completely stupefy Euthyphro, an expert on religious ideology, using his own logic, "Either our former conclusion was wrong or, if it was right, we are wrong now" (Plato, 20). Furthermore, just as Euthyphro leaves the conversation unchanged without giving a sound argument, the people in general also ignore the flaws in the origin of their religious philosophies. Socrates' legendary apathy for the will of the majority is exemplified when he tells his friend (translated by G.M.A. Grube), "Would that the majority could inflict the greatest evils, for they would then be capable of the greatest good, and that would be fine, but now they cannot do either. They cannot make a man either wise or foolish, but they inflict things haphazardly" (47). Ultimately, the masses' view on what is right and what is morally reprehensible is biased until a revolutionary such as Socrates assists his or her own society to see their inadequacies from an alternative perspective.
Euthyphro enters his dialogue with Socrates overconfident. It is partially Euthyphro's arrogance that causes his defeat, "I should be of no use, Socrates, and Euthyphro would not be superior to the majority of men, if I did not have accurate knowledge of all such things" (8). One of the main themes in Socrates' dialogue with Euthyphro is what constitutes a definition of a term, as Socrates begins the argument by inquiring Euthyphro what is the definition of piousness. Euthyphro claims that practicing unbiased justice is the right thing to do, "I say that the pious is to do what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer, be it about murder or temple robbery or anything else, whether the wrongdoer is your father or your mother or anyone else; not to prosecute them is impious" (9). Socrates refuses to accept that answer, and furthermore does not accept Euthyphro's later arguments, namely that one should act in a pious manner to please the gods.
