Is that your final answer?

The conversation makes it seem as if Plato cares about detangling truth even if it differs from the social norms of his present era. Throughout the conversation, points are brought up and disputed with logic, even if that causes them to change their original points of argument. One example is the morality of Euthyphro’s father. Although he did technically kill a man, they fiddle around with whether or not it was as terrible as meets the eye. The man he caused to perish had killed another man quite violently earlier, making sympathy a far reach. The two of them also contemplate what it means to be pious. They question the origin of such a notion as being pious. Socrates is interested more in the idea of being pious and what it means to his comrade over what the denotation of what it means to be pious socially. It questions whether being pious originates from following the will of Gods. But he also brings up the common held belief of his era that the gods frequently quarrel, and what effect this would have on the concept of being pious. Although he never shoots down the beliefs and opinions of his friend, he still questions them to make sure that they are sound. By doing so, he causes his friend to also examine his beliefs with more enhanced scrutiny. Above all else, Plato wants to make sure that ideas are supported and questioned, and not just accepted.