The Euthyphro Dilemma at Euthyphro 10e-11b
Euthyphro: 10E How so, Socrates?
Socrates: Because we agree that what is holy is loved because it is holy, and it is not because it is loved, that it is holy; is this so?
Socrates: And yet, what is beloved of the gods is beloved of the gods, by reason of their very love. But the reason it is loved is not because it is beloved of the gods.
Euthyphro: That is true.
Socrates: But, dear Euthyphro, if what is beloved of the gods, and what is holy, were the same, then, if what is holy 11A was loved because of being holy, what is beloved of the gods too would be loved, because of being beloved of the gods; and if, on the other hand, what is beloved of the gods, was beloved of the gods, because of being loved by the gods, what is holy too would be holy because of being loved. But you can now see that these two are opposites, as they are completely different from one another; for one is the sort of thing that is loved, because it is loved, while the other is the sort of thing that is loved, and is loved for that reason. And when I asked what precisely what is holy is, it seems you were not willing to disclose its essence to me, but only to describe something it undergoes, that what is holy is affected as follows: by being loved by all 11B the gods. But you have not yet said what it actually is. So, if you please, don’t hide this from me, but tell me again, from the beginning, what precisely what is holy is, regardless of whether it is loved by the gods or whatever else happens to it, for we shan’t argue over that. Just state what holiness and unholiness are, and don’t hold back.