Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The judges were not obliged to refrain from passing judgm... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The judges were not obliged to refrain from passing judgment in the case of Protagoras versus Euathlus.

    Justice & Punishment
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Judicial authority derives its legitimacy from the capacity to render determinate verdicts that resolve disputes rather than perpetuate them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When any verdict a court renders is immediately nullified by its own logical consequences, the court lacks the jurisdictional competence to adjudicate that dispute.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Protagoras v. Euathlus generates contradictory legal obligations regardless of outcome, meaning no determinate resolution exists for judges to render.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Valla's rhetorical dissolution of the dilemma operates at the level of argument-selection, not at the level of the underlying contractual-judicial conflict that persists after judgment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hart and Fuller's positivist-natural law debate establishes that legal systems require internal consistency as a condition of validity for any particular ruling.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A case where the agreement and the verdict cannot be simultaneously enforced reveals a genuine gap in legal competence, not merely a rhetorical puzzle resolvable by clever framing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A response to a dilemma can be formulated as long as one concentrates on the relevant aspects of the case.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Valla's rhetorical analysis shows that Euathlus cannot simultaneously invoke both the agreement and the verdict as grounds for non-payment — he must choose one or the other.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If Euathlus loses, refusing to obey the judges' sentence shows contempt; if Euathlus wins, he is bound by his agreement to pay Protagoras.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Justice & Punishment

    Connections

    4 topics

    Truth & Knowledge2 linkedSocial Contract1 linkedDemocracy & Governance1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A case where the agreement and the verdict cannot be simultaneously enforced rev...A dilemma that admits of a coherent resolution does not require judges to abstai...A response to a dilemma can be formulated as long as one concentrates on the rel...Hart and Fuller's positivist-natural law debate establishes that legal systems r...
    +6 moreShow less
    If Euathlus loses, refusing to obey the judges' sentence shows contempt; if Euat...Judicial authority derives its legitimacy from the capacity to render determinat...

    Similar

    This replicates the verdict of a prohibition dilemma in which all of A...75%A dilemma that admits of a coherent resolution does not require judges...75%A judge may be forced to rule against an innocent accused when legally...75%If Euathlus loses, refusing to obey the judges' sentence shows contemp...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: lorenzo-valla
    View source passageHide passage
    In medieval times, dilemma does not seem to have attracted much theoretical reflection, though there was an extensive literature on related genres such as insolubilia and paradoxes, which were generally treated in a logical manner. It is, therefore, interesting to see Valla discussing a whole range of examples of dilemma. The rhetoric textbook by the Byzantine émigré George of Trebizond (1396–1486), composed about 1433, was probably an important source for him. This work might also have led Vall
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Protagoras v. Euathlus generates contradictory legal obligations regardless of o...
    Valla's rhetorical analysis shows that Euathlus cannot simultaneously invoke bot...
    Valla's rhetorical dissolution of the dilemma operates at the level of argument-...
    When any verdict a court renders is immediately nullified by its own logical con...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit