EUTHYPHRO: Yes.

SOCRATES: But that which is dear to the gods is dear to them because it is
loved by them, not loved by them because it is dear to them.

EUTHYPHRO: True.

SOCRATES: But, friend Euthyphro, if that which is holy is the same with
that which is dear to God, and is loved because it is holy, then that which
is dear to God would have been loved as being dear to God; but if that
which is dear to God is dear to him because loved by him, then that which
is holy would have been holy because loved by him. But now you see that
the reverse is the case, and that they are quite different from one
another. For one (theophiles) is of a kind to be loved cause it is loved,
and the other (osion) is loved because it is of a kind to be loved. Thus
you appear to me, Euthyphro, when I ask you what is the essence of
holiness, to offer an attribute only, and not the essence--the attribute of
being loved by all the gods. But you still refuse to explain to me the
nature of holiness. And therefore, if you please, I will ask you not to
hide your treasure, but to tell me once more what holiness or piety really
is, whether dear to the gods or not (for that is a matter about which we
will not quarrel); and what is impiety?

EUTHYPHRO: I really do not know, Socrates, how to express what I mean.
For somehow or other our arguments, on whatever ground we rest them, seem
to turn round and walk away from us.

SOCRATES: Your words, Euthyphro, are like the handiwork of my ancestor
Daedalus; and if I were the sayer or propounder of them, you might say that
my arguments walk away and will not remain fixed where they are placed