There are two main points in Socrates' refutation of Euthyphro's third account of piety. Central to the refutation is the asymmetry between being god-loved and the gods' activity of loving something. It seems hard to dispute that the second explains the first, while the first does not explain the second. The other element of the argument is the claim that the gods love what is pious because it is pious. There was no need for Euthyphro to embrace this view. It is not entirely obvious that it is the case, either. For example, it may be that the gods love a human act because it is just. To be just and to be god-loved are not the same thing, and so the argument of the last paragraph cannot be applied. Euthyphro could, then, simply embrace the conclusion that "the pious would be pious because it was being loved by the gods."
