Genovia VinsonIn Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro discuss what impiety/piety is and Euthyphro gives five definitions as to what it is and Socrates refutes each one of these definitions.The first definition Euthyphro gives, is that piety is what he is doing now( prosecuting his father for manslaughter). Socrates rejects this, saying that this not a definition but an example. It does not provide the central element that makes a pious action pious. The second definition Euthyphro gives is that whatever is loved by the gods is pious, and whatever is not is impious. Socrates replies, saying that Euthyphro has begun to answer the way he wants but is still wrong. The gods are at constant odds with each other, and do not always agree, especially when it comes to what pleases them. Since the gods disagree, a certain action can be pious and impious at the same time which is not logically possible. Euthyphro disagrees with Socrates’ rebuttal saying that even the gods could agree that someone who kills unjustly should be punished but Socrates says that a disagreement would still arise over the amount of justification there is for the killing. Therefore the same action can be pious and impious, and does not provide a definition.The third definition is but a slight amendment from the second one. Euthyphro says: What allthe gods love is pious, and what they allhate is impious. Socrates answers with a crucial question asking is action being loved by the gods because it’s pious, or is it pious because they all love it? Socrates confuses Euthyphro here beginning to talk in circles on whether the action ispious and god-loved, and if they were indeed the same thing. Euthyphro’s definition is flawed, because just because the gods love an action, it does not in fact make the action pious. Their loveof the action still does not define exactly what piety is, and must stem from something.