The artist gets a flat piece of fine grained wood of whatever size they want, and then cuts a design or pattern into the surface, keeping the surface flat. This is then used as a block which is inked and paper is pressed against it, creating a print. So the meaning can be either the block itself or the print made from it.
Euthyphro opens with the argument that 'Good is what is Holy'. He argues that sentient beings (people) are flawed and make bad judgments, whereas Gods are superior and possess far more wisdom than us; therefore what they command must be good. This can be refuted by pointing out that there are many different Gods, each of whom have different ideas of what is Good, thus making the Gods impossible to use as a source of morality.
Euthyphro's next argument is that what all the Gods agree upon is good. For example, most deities agree that it is wrong to kill a man without a cause. By asking Euthyphro to back this up you can cause the thinker to spout the same circular argument that the non-virtual Socrates did by posing to him the Euthyphro dilemma: 'What the Gods Agree Upon is Always Good' vs. 'If Things are Good, the Gods Will Agree on Them'. This demolishes Euthyphro's argument as it is shown that in order for what the Gods command to benefit mankind, the actions they command must have value rooted externally.
Sophist of Athens
Protagoras argues that 'The Source of Morality is the Self'. His reasoning for this is a simple logical elimination. The conversation with Euthyphro has already proven that morality doesn't come from the Gods, while Protagoras believes it unlikely that morality could come from rocks and trees, because, as a system that governs the actions of humans, it makes little sense that it would originate from our surroundings. This leads him to the idea that 'Morality is up to the Individual' as the only possible remaining option; an assumption that you point out to be flawed as there is always the possibility that alternatives have been overlooked.
Protagoras goes on to declare that there is nothing upon which everyone can agree and 'Whatever an Individual Believes to be Right is Right', which he backs up by saying that people disagreed on most issues in Athenian Democracy, and that there were even those who argued that 'Those who Speak out Should be Put to Death'. This is easily rebutted as you claim that in extreme cases such as these, the values of an individual can indeed be wrong. The evidence for this is that if Free Speech was punished, Science and Philosophy would be no more and society would cease to advance; thus morality can't be determined entirely by the individual.
Protagoras is then forced to put forth that 'All Morals are Subjective', meaning that they are dependent on situation. While it is agreed that this is an interesting thought, it acknowledges that there are factors other than the individual that affect morality, undermining his entire philosophy.
Political Philosopher and Author of Leviathan
Hobbes' reasoning is based upon his premise of 'The Natural Condition of Mankind', the substance of which is that men are selfish and in competition for the resources necessary for survival. This creates a 'Constant State of War' with all other men and in such a state there is no morality. Of course, this explains very little in terms of the complex societies that we live in today and can be refuted by simply remarking that people often work together in order to further the overall good in the world. For example, builders working together to build a house or philosophers working together to find the truth.
Hobbes affirms this, stressing that, despite there being no morality in the state of nature, it is our sense of morality that allows us to co-operate in such a fashion. He claims that this sense of morality is born through 'The Social Contract'. Hobbes supports this by offering that since the natural state is an extremely uncomfortable way of living, with no assurance of man's most fundamental self-interest of survival, mankind is impelled to seek peace through the formation of social contracts between individuals, each agreeing to give up some of our personal freedoms, most notably our freedom to harm, in exchange for greater security. This seems to be somewhat of a contradiction in that the theory is based upon the idea that mankind is selfish and will go to any lengths to improve their own prosperity. As the only benefits of the social contract originate from others giving up their rights, if people are as selfish as he claims, what is there to stop individuals from breaking a contract to seek the most advantageous situation; to keep their
this is more then you needed and may not even be what you need but i am sure you will end up useing it