Argumentation theorists often disagree about which scheme best represents a given type of argument. Unfortunately, authors sometimes become involved in fruitless pseudo-agreement because they fail to perceive that their supposedly competing schemes are means for achieving different practical or theoretical goals. This paper explains some of the different purposes that an argument scheme may serve, and it indicates how the relevant type of pseudo-disagreement may be avoided.

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 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 is defended (...) from criticisms formulated by Trudy Govier, Marcello Guarini and Lilian Bermejo-Luque. (shrink)

Anglo-American authors have paid little attention to a subtle distinction that has important jurisprudential implications. It is the distinction between sources of law and the legal norms which can be derived from sources by means of interpretation. The distinction might also be rendered as a threefold one, separating sources of law from legal norms and both of these from that which mediates their relation, namely, methods of legal interpretation. This paper intends to state the “source-norm” distinction clearly and to give (...) examples of jurisprudential insights that are missed, and mistakes that may be made if the distinction is not given its due. (shrink)

“Deductivism” is a broad label for various theories that emphasize the importance of deductive argument in contexts of rational discussion. This paper makes a case for a very specific form of deductivism. The paper highlights the dialectical importance of advancing deductively valid arguments in natural-language reasoning. Sections 2 and 3 explain the various forms that deductivism has taken. Section 4 makes a case for a particular form of deductivism. Section 5 discusses the value of deductive argument in law. Section 6 (...) concludes and acknowledges critical questions that need to be addressed more fully in future work. (shrink)

Ordinary arguments from authority have the following structure: A says p; A is authoritative on such things; so p. Legal actors use such arguments whenever they ground their decisions on the sheer “say-so” of legislators, judges, scholars, expert witnesses, and so on. This paper focuses on arguments appealing to the authority of scholars, “doctrinal” or “dogmatic” legal scholars in particular. Appeal to doctrinal authority is a puzzling feature of legal argumentation. In what sense are doctrinal scholars “authorities”? Is p, as (...) advanced by a scholar, descriptive or prescriptive? Is scholarly authority grounded on expertise or something different? The paper addresses these questions. (shrink)

There is a remarkable difference between that which Anglo-American legal philosophers more or less unanimously regard as their subject matter and that which prominent Continental writers have emphasized as one of the main topics for jurisprudential discussion. The latter have often directed their attention to something quite specific: not law or the aforementioned law-related phenomena, but the study of law, or legal scholarship. In particular, Continental writers have been interested in legal scholarship as it is characteristically produced by law teachers. (...) Some phrases that may be used to describe this type of scholarship are “doctrinal legal scholarship”, “legal dogmatics”, and “legal science in a narrow a sense”. This paper explains why Anglo-American theorists should keep their minds open to the idea that jurisprudence may take the doctrinal study of law as its subject matter. It also attempts to explain what doctrinal legal scholarship is, and thus engages in precisely the type of jurisprudential inquiry that it is out to promote. (shrink)

Critics of Hartian legal positivism have characterized it as an error theory about judicial discourse —more precisely, about judicial argument in contexts of disagreement about proper interpretive methodology—. The critics have also suggested that Hartian positivism, like error theories in other areas of philosophy, is to be presumed false. The purpose of this paper is to give a precise account of the nature and extent of the error assigned to judges by Hartian positivists. It will be argued that Hartian positivism, (...) even if it can be understood as a form of error theory, should not be likened to, say, error theories in metaethics, where the relevant error is pervasive and mysteriously enduring.Resumen:Los críticos del positivismo jurídico hartiano han caracterizado este enfoque como una teoría del error sobre el discurso judicial —concretamente sobre la argumentación judicial en el contexto de desacuerdos relacionados con una metodología de interpretación apropiada—. Los críticos también han sugerido que el positivismo hartiano, al igual que otras teorías del error en otros campos de la filosofía, ha de ser tomada por falsa. El propósito de este artículo es ofrecer una explicación más cuidadosa de la naturaleza y alcance del error que los positivistas hartianos atribuyen a los jueces. Se argumentará que el positivismo hartiano, aun cuando pudiera ser entendida como una forma de teoría del error, no debería ser relacionada con, por ejemplo, teorías del error en metaética, donde el error relevante es omnicomprensivo y misteriosamente permanente. (shrink)

This paper approaches legal argumentation from a rhetorical perspective. It discusses the nature of the audiences that are targeted by judges in the legal process. Judicial opinions reach diverse groups of people with very different attitudes and expectations: other judges, lawyers, litigants, concerned citizens, etc. One important way in which these groups differ is that some of them are more likely to be persuaded by legalistic, precedent or statute-based arguments, while others expect judges to decide on grounds of justice or (...) equity. So, judges face the challenge of determining whether they should select particular groups for special attention, or whether they have alternative rhetorical means to approach the problem of audience diversity. One strategy that is likely to be recommended by rhetorical scholars is that judges should not try to accommodate the various preferences of their actual readership, but that they should rather invoke an idealized audience or some version of Chaïm Perelman’s universal audience. However, the paper tries to show that the universal audience is of limited value for a discussion about how judges ought to proceed in the face of audience diversity. In particular, the idea of a universal audience does not help judges to make the choice between a legalistic or an equity-based approach to legal decision-making. By showing that this is so, the paper also raises doubts about the common thought that to invoke the universal audience in law is to appeal to natural law. (shrink)

Defenders and opponents of judicial review under charters of rights often share political ideals, and yet disagree deeply on the best means to pro- mote them or on the proper way to balance them in the event of conflict. In his most recent book, Wil Waluchow attempts to provide a theory of judicial review which deals adequately with the popular ideals of stability and adaptability. The cornerstone of his argument is the notion of community morality - that which enables constitutional (...) adjudicators to develop charter law (adaptability) while remaining loyal to democratic and rule of law principles (stability). The aim of this paper is to offer a critique of the notion of community morality; in particular, the aim is to challenge the assumption that the morality of the members of modern plural societies is as uniform as Waluchow’s theory requires it to be.Resumen:Los defensores y oponentes de la figura del judicial review que se lleva a cabo a través de la defensa de las garantías individuales en ocasiones comparten puntos de vista en relación con los ideales políticos, sin embargo, existen profundos desacuerdos en cuanto a la mejor forma de promocionarlos o en cuanto a la manera apropiada de decidir casos concretos en casos de conflicto. En su más reciente libro, Wil Waluchow intenta proporcionar una teoría del judicial review que atienda adecuadamente los ideales comunes de estabilidad y adaptabilidad. El punto medular de su argumento es la noción de la moralidad de la comunidad—aquella que permite a los jueces constitucionales desarrollar las garantías y derechos (adaptabilidad) mientras que se continúa leal a los principios de democracia y Estado de derecho (estabilidad)—. El objetivo de este trabajo es ofrecer una crítica a esta noción de moralidad de la comunidad, concretamente el objetivo es plantear un reto a la cuestión de asumir que la moralidad de los miembros de las sociedades modernas plurales es tan uniforme como lo exige la teoría de Waluchow. (shrink)