ABSTRACT
The court should not find for Protagoras. If they did find for Protagoras they would perpetrate an injustice, since Euathlus has yet to win a case (and would still be in that position after that decision). Of course, if they find in favour of Euathlus, as they should, Euathlus is now contractually bound to pay, since he has just won a case, and, if he doesn’t pay up, Protagoras can then bring another suit against him, a suit which must surely succeed. On this point Protagoras was right. This was the solution urged by G. W. Leibniz (1646-1716) – to a close variant – in his doctoral dissertation. He concluded the example was not worthy of being counted among the paradoxes, presumably since the question was too easy to answer.
