IRVING M. COPI, INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 241 (4th ed. 1972)
No discussion of dilemmas would be complete unless it mentioned the celebrated lawsuit between Protagoras and Eulathus. Protagoras was a teacher who lived
in Greece during the fifth century B.C. He taught many subjects but specialized in the art of pleading before juries. Eulathus wanted to become a lawyer, but, not
being able to pay the required tuition, he made an arrangement according to which Protagoras would teach him but not receive payment until Eulathus won his
first case. When Eulathus finished his course of study, he delayed going into practice. Tired of waiting for his money, Protagoras brought suit against his former
pupil for the tuition money that was owed. Unmindful of the adage that the lawyer who tries his own case has a fool for a client, Eulathus decided to plead his
own case in court. When the trial began, Protagoras presented his side of the case in a crushing dilemma:
"If Eulathus loses this case, then he must pay me (by the judgment of the court); if he wins this case, then he must pay me (by the terms of the contract). He must
either lose or win this case. Therefore Eulathus must pay me."
The situation looked bad for Eulathus, but he had learned well the art of rhetoric. He offered the court the following counterdilemma in rebuttal:
"If I win this case, I shall not have to pay Protagoras (by the judgment of the court); if I lose this case, I shall not have to pay Protagoras (by the terms of the
contract, for then I shall not yet have won my first case). I must either win or lose this case. Therefore I do not have to pay
Protagoras!"
Had you been the judge, how would you have decided?