Argument G3p10

 Argument

A mong the great teachers of ancient Athens was one named Protagoras ([prəʊ'tægərəs]), who was born more than twenty-four centuries ago. He wrote books and taught many subjects, including the laws of argument and the right use of language. It is said that he was the first teacher to accept money for his services, and that he was once paid about four hundred pounds for teaching one student. He was a man of great ability; and at one time, when some new laws were needed, Protagoras was the man chosen to make them.

A certain student, Evalthus ([i'vælθəs]), heard of this famous teacher and asked him to give him lessons. Evalthus did not want to pay for his lessons at once, and after some discussion it was finally agreed between them that Evalthus should pay only if he won his first case in the law courts. For if he won, it would prove that he had been taught well.

The lessons began and Evalthus proved himself to be a clever student. He worked hard, and the time came when he had reached the end of his studies. He then refused to pay Protagoras anything whatever.

Protagoras therefore took Evalthus to court and told the judges that he wanted his money. He explained that he must be paid whether he won or lost the case. "Whatever you decide," he declared to the judges, "I must be paid. For if you decide in my favour, then I win the case, and so I must be paid. But if you decide against me, then Evalthus has won his first case in the law courts; according to our agreement, he must pay me for his lessons. Therefore I shall get my money whatever happens."

After considering this argument, the Athenian judges found no fault in it. But they asked Evalueus to reply.

"It is quite clear," said Evalueus,"that I must not pay. For either the judges will decide in my favour, or they will decide against me. If they decide in my favour, then I have won the case, and I must not pay. But if Protagoras wins, then I have lost my first case in the law courts. Therefore, according to our agreement. I do not have to pay him for the lessons. So I need not pay in any event.”

As both these arguments appeared to be faultless, the judges were unable to come to a decision. They therefore ordered the two men to appear before them again a hundred years later.