Talk:Paradox of the Court

Philosophy: Logic / Ancient Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Ancient philosophy

No Real Paradox

There is no real paradox here. The only problem is the argument made by Protagoras. His argument isn't about the actual contract, or whether Euathlus has actually won a case yet. He is making a meta-argument to the court that no matter what the outcome, he will be the winner. As is the case so often in a self referential argument, it cuts both ways, and doesn't actually clarify the issue.

In reality, the court would ignore Protagoras' argument, and decide in favor of Euathlus. Clearly Euathlus has not yet won ANY cases, and therefore does not (yet) owe Protagoras his payment. After this case is done, Euathlus has won a case, and a second case would be decided in favor of Protagoras.

If the court were to decide the first case in favor of Protagoras, it would result in a contradiction. Euathlus would not have won any cases, yet still would have paid his fee.

To really avoid any type of contradiction, Protagoras could (frivolously) sue Euathlus for something unrelated (e.g. defamation of character), claiming huge damages (giving Euathlus motivation to win). If Protagoras wins this case, he doesn't care about the tutor fee. If he loses (as expected), he is then set up to easily win the case regarding his tutor fee.

-- Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.177.36.73 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, that would only work out favourably for Protagoras if the court costs associated with losing that case are less than what Euathlus owes him. I doubt that would be the case. Reyk _YO! 16:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based solely on the wording of the paradox in the article, there is no grounds for Protogras suing in the first place (certainly not in relation to terms of the contract into which he apparently willingly entered into). He hasn't been denied payment at the time of the suing and he agreed to be paid after the student won his first case. The court case would of course rule in favour of Euathlus, and then Euathlus may (but not necessarily) be required to pay Protagoras based on the terms of the original contract. Just because the amount of the contract and the amount of the lawsuit were the same is irrelevant and would not bear on the court's decision (as user Tony correctly pointed out). Euathlus might then choose not to pay but countersue Protagoras based on an Unclean hands defence, which may result in either a restoration or even voiding of the contract, and the court may award damages to Euathlus for Protagoras' act of bad faith. This seems to me like a pretty crap "paradox". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a fun little time capsule! Hey, people in the past, you should really research coronaviral vaccines! 2601:643:8100:2921:70D1:58AE:983D:4030 (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]