Analogical Arguments in Ethics and Law: A Defence of Deductivism

Authors

  • Fábio Perin Shecaira Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, National School of Law

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v33i3.3778

Keywords:

a priori analogical arguments, Bruce Waller, deductivism, ethics, law

Abstract

The paper provides a qualified defence of Bruce Waller’s deductivist schema for a priori analogical arguments in ethics and law. One crucial qualification is that the schema represents analogical arguments as complexes composed of one deductive inference (hence “deductivism”) but also of one non-deductive subargument. Another important qualification is that the schema is informed by normative assumptions regarding the conditions that an analogical argument must satisfy in order for it to count as an optimal instance of its kind. Waller’s schema (in qualified form) is defended from criticisms formulated by Trudy Govier, Marcello Guarini and Lilian Bermejo-Luque.

Author Biography

Fábio Perin Shecaira, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, National School of Law

Professor, Faculty of Law

Downloads

Published

2013-09-12

Issue

Vol. 33 No. 3 (2013)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright for each article published in Informal Logic belongs to its author(s). Informal Logic has the right of first publication. Permission to reprint any article that appears in Informal Logic MUST be obtained in writing from the author(s). In addition to any form of acknowledgement required by the author(s), the following notice must be added to the statement of copyright permission made in the reprint (with the appropriate numbers replacing the ellipses): [Article Title] was originally published in Informal Logic, [year], Volume ..., Number ..., pp. ...-... .