The Paradox of the Court, also known as Protagoras’ paradox, is a paradox originating in ancient Greece. It is said that the famous lawyer and scholar Protagoras took on a pupil, Euathlus, for not paying his fees. The understanding was that the student Euathlus would pay fees to Protagoras for his instruction, after Euathlus wins his first court case. Protagoras was much in demand as a law teacher. After instruction, Euathlus decided to not enter the profession of law, and Protagoras decided to sue Euathlus for the amount owed.
Protagoras argued that if he won the case, he would be paid his money. If Euathlus won the case, Protagoras would still be paid according to the original contract, because Euathlus would have won his first case.
On the other hand, Euathlus maintained that if he won, then by the court’s decision he would not have to pay Protagoras. If, on the other hand, Protagoras won, then Euathlus would still not have won a case and would, therefore, not be obliged to pay.
The question is then, which of the two men do you think is right?