Legal Paradox - Curiouser.co.uk

Protagoras' Legal Paradox
Protagoras was a Greek sophist 1. any one of a class of men in ancient Athens who taught philosophy, dialect, rhetoric etc., for money. 2. a plausable but fallacious reasoner, a quibbler or casuist. , who lived in the fifth century B.C.. [Will somebody please advise me as to whether or not sentences ending in an abbreviation ought to end with two full stops?] It is said that Protagoras once agreed with one of his pupils that he could delay payment for his tuition until he had won his first case. The agreement seemed sound, until the student was sufficiently qualified to start offering his services professionally. He hung a sign outside his office, but no business came his way. Frustrated, Protagoras decided to sue his former pupil. Can you see the paradox that subsequently arose? CONTINUE

Protagoras' Legal Paradox

Protagoras was a Greek sophist

1. any one of a class of men in ancient Athens who taught philosophy, dialect, rhetoric etc., for money. 2. a plausable but fallacious reasoner, a quibbler or casuist.

, who lived in the fifth century B.C.. [Will somebody please advise me as to whether or not sentences ending in an abbreviation ought to end with two full stops?]
It is said that Protagoras once agreed with one of his pupils that he could delay payment for his tuition until he had won his first case.

The agreement seemed sound, until the student was sufficiently qualified to start offering his services professionally. He hung a sign outside his office, but no business came his way. Frustrated, Protagoras decided to sue his former pupil.

Can you see the paradox that subsequently arose?

CONTINUE

Protagoras reasoned that he was on to a "sure thing". He reasoned that either he would win the case, in which case his pupil would be required by the courts to pay for his tuition, or he would lose, in which case his former pupil would have won his first case and would therefore be required to pay for his tuition under the terms of their original agrreement.

His former pupil disagreed.He reasoned that either he (the former pupil) would lose that case, in which case he would still never have won a case and would therefore not be required to pay under the terms of their original agreement, or he would win the case and the court would rule that he did not have to pay.

WHO WAS RIGHT?

Who knows?

CONTINUE

If you would like to read more about paradoxes,
Aha! Gotcha : Paradoxes to Puzzle and Delight
is recommended by the author of this site.

Please support this site by following any of the BOOK LINKS featured at curiouser.co.uk. Thank you.