However, Socrates argues that what is holy and what has been approved by the gods cannot be the same. It puts forward the ambiguous argument that what is holy is determined by the gods, but what is holy determines what the gods will approve of. A simple reasoning is that the two cannot be seen as the same. In another attempt, Euthyphro posits that holiness is linked to justice, in the religious sense. The professor defined it as justice focused on protecting the will and teachings of the gods. In this sense, he asserts that justice involves “taking care of the gods” (Plato and Jowett, 2013). Socrates refutes this definition because he believes that the gods do not need to be assisted by mortals. In his final attempt, Euthyphro defines holiness as an exchange between gods and human beings. The gods receive sacrifices from us, while we answer our prayers in return. In response, Socrates posits that this perspective involves correlations with the earlier argument about the approval of the gods. He states that while holiness is gratifying to the gods, it is ambiguous, as shown by the argument concerning what the gods approve of and the influences behind them (Plato. & Gallop,