However, Socrates argues that what is holy and what has been approved by the gods cannot be the same thing. He highlights the ambiguous argument that what is holy is determined by the gods, but what is holy directs what the gods will approve. Simple reasoning dictates that the two cannot be perceived as the same. In another attempt, Euthyphro postulates that holiness is related to justice, in the religious sense. The master defined it as a justice focused on protecting the will and teachings of the gods. In this sense, he states that justice involves “taking care of the gods” (Plato. & Jowett, 2013). Socrates refutes this definition because he believes that the gods do not need the assistance of mortals. In his final attempt, Euthyphro defines holiness as an exchange between the gods and humans. The gods receive sacrifices from us, while we answer our prayers in return. In response, Socrates postulates that this perspective implies correlations with the previous argument about the approval of the gods. He states that if sainthood is rewarding to the gods, it is ambiguous as seen in the discussion regarding what the gods approve of and the influences behind them (Plato. & Gallop,