Reference no: EM133328201

Assignment:

Discussion Prompt 1

This question prompt concerns an ancient Greek court case that contemporary lawyers and legal scholars still analyze and debate in the 21st century. A young man named Euathlus wanted to become a lawyer. He sought instruction from Protagoras, who was a highly skilled speaker and debater, so that he could argue more effectively and persuasively. Because he could not afford the fee Protagoras charged for instruction, he worked out a deal with Protagoras according to which Euathlus would pay Protagoras after Euathlus won his first case. Protagoras taught Euathlus, but Euathlus refused to take any cases. This aggravated Protagoras, who sued Euathlus in an attempt to force Euathlus to pay for the instruction he received.

Euathlus chose to defend himself during the trial. Knowing this, Protagoras presented the following argument to the court: "Euathlus will either win this case or he will lose this case. If he wins this case, then he must pay me the money he owes me, since this is his first case and our agreement requires him to pay me after he wins his first case. If he loses this case, then the judgment of this court will require him to pay me the money he owes me, since his refusal to pay is the very reason I sued him in the first place. Therefore, either Euathlus must pay me because our contract requires him to do so or Euathlus must pay me because the judgment of the court will require him to do so. Thus, Euathlus must pay me."

Protagoras thought that his argument put Euathlus into a hopeless position. He underestimated his former student, whose brilliant response is still studied and analyzed 25 centuries later. This was the argument Euathlus presented to the court: "I will either win this case or I will lose this case. If I win this case, then the court will rule that I am not obligated to pay Protagoras, since the purpose of his lawsuit against me was to obligate me to pay him the money he demands. If I lose this case, then the terms of my contract with Protagoras dictate that I am not obligated to pay him because I did not win my first case yet. Therefore, either the court will rule that I am not obligated to pay Protagoras or the terms of my contract with Protagoras will dictate that I am not obligated to pay Protagoras. Thus, I am not obligated to pay Protagoras."

a) Do the arguments presented by Protagoras and Euathlus employ any of the implicational rules discussed in section 8.1? If so, which one(s)?

b) If you were serving on the jury on this case, would you decide in favor of Protagoras or in favor of Euathlus? Explain your answer.

Discussion Prompt 2

In section 8.2, the authors of your textbook point out that many philosophers agree with them that "the truth of a statement consists in its describing things as they are" (p. 416) but reject LEM (the Law of the Excluded Middle) "for reasons having to do with vagueness, indeterminacy, and the nature of time" (p. 416). This question will focus on one of these reasons - LEM's implications for the nature of time. LEM states that for any proposition p, either p is true or ∼∼p is true. As Aristotle developed the logical system you studied in chapters 5 and 6, he asked himself a question that generated a debate that continued centuries after his death. He wondered whether LEM applies to statements made regarding future contingent events.

Future contingent events are events that could happen in the future but might not happen. The example that Aristotle considered was "There will be a sea battle tomorrow." If LEM applies to statements regarding future contingent events, then either "There will be a sea battle tomorrow" is true or "It is not the case that there will be a sea battle tomorrow" is true. Whichever of those statements is true would have to be true right now, in the present. In order for either statement to be true in the present, however, the future must already exist.

Many philosophers have considered this implication to be deeply disturbing and have rejected LEM outright because of it, whereas others have argued that LEM applies to every statement except statements about future contingent events. Another group of philosophers have tried to construct logical systems in which statements could have one of three possible truth values: true, false, and indeterminate. In these logical systems (they are often called "multi-valued logics" or "many-valued logics"), statements regarding future contingent events have the truth value of "indeterminate."

Do you think that LEM applies to statements regarding future contingent events? Why or why not? Explain your answer.