Can you solve the dilemma?

[ºAlỹxº]

I was studying Critical Thinking today and came across a pretty interesting story about a dilemma. Thought I'd share:

"In this dilemma, the Greek sophist, Protagoras, takes on a student of rhetoric, Euathlus, and agrees that Euathlus need not pay him until he has won his first court case. Euathlus, loathe to pay his fee, puts off prosecuting his first case. Finally Protagoras, tired of not being paid, takes his former pupil to court in an attempt to force him to pay. He states his case as follows:

If I win this case, Euathlus must pay me, by the judgment of the court. If Euathlus wins this case, he must pay me, by the terms of our contract. I must either win or not win. Therefore, Euathlus must pay me.

But Euathlus had learned his lessons well, for he replies:

If I win this case, I will not have to pay, by the judgment of the court. If I lose this case, I will not have to pay, by the terms of our contract. I must either win or lose. Therefore, I do not have to pay."

(sourced from Philosophy 252, Study Guide, written by AU.)

[~Tyson~]

And the dilemma is? Protagoras wouldn't get anything from Euathlus, vice-versa - no matter who lose or win. At least that how I see it.

[FRazier]

Dilemma ?!?!
it's clear "Euathlus" won't pay anything to Protagoras.

[~Tyson~]

But if Protagoras can get someone else to sue Euathlus for him and split the reward...perhaps that can work?

[Boomerang]

It's clear: Both are lawyers and full of shìt.

[FRazier]

It's clear: Both are lawyers and full of shìt.

I like the reply

[angra]

I was studying Critical Thinking today and came across a pretty interesting story about a dilemma. Thought I'd share:

"In this dilemma, the Greek sophist, Protagoras, takes on a student of rhetoric, Euathlus, and agrees that Euathlus need not pay him until he has won his first court case. Euathlus, loathe to pay his fee, puts off prosecuting his first case. Finally Protagoras, tired of not being paid, takes his former pupil to court in an attempt to force him to pay. He states his case as follows:

If I win this case, Euathlus must pay me, by the judgment of the court. If Euathlus wins this case, he must pay me, by the terms of our contract. I must either win or not win. Therefore, Euathlus must pay me.

But Euathlus had learned his lessons well, for he replies:

If I win this case, I will not have to pay, by the judgment of the court. If I lose this case, I will not have to pay, by the terms of our contract. I must either win or lose. Therefore, I do not have to pay."

(sourced from Philosophy 252, Study Guide, written by AU.)

If Euathlus wins the case, he will not have to pay, by the judgement of the court. If he loses, he will not have to pay, by the terms of his covenant with Protagoras. The terms state that he will not have to pay until he has won his "first" case in court, but since he puts it off the first court case hasn't been concluded and thus he owes no money yet(assuming he loses the case). Protagoras tired of not getting payed takes him to court(this is the second court case, not the first) in order to get him to either lose or win; in which case upon losing, Euathlus would have to pay him by the terms of the contract, likewise, if Euathlus wins he would also have to pay Protagoras. But why? I don't know. However, in this short excerpt, Protagoras seems to not realize that this is the second court case, and therefore the conditions of the contract are void.

Yeah, I'm probably way off.

[rober]

I think, Its a big confusion..

[WaterDemon]

To the people who may not get it;

Protagoras made an contract that Euathlus would not have to pay him until he won his first case. If Protagoras wins, Euathlus would not have to pay him because he has yet to win his first case. If Euathlus won, the contract would be eliminated in Euathlus's favor by the court, therefor he would not have to pay him.

However, Euathlus could also hire a lawyer OR the court could rule that Protagoras wins and making the contract invalid, therefor forcing Euathlus to pay.

[KaLaBoRaTiVe.]

I guess you can't explain this topic thoroughly without sounding like a english professor...