Advertisement

The Rehabilitation of Practical Reasoning and the Persistence of Deductivism: An Impossible Challenge?

  • José Manuel Aroso LinharesEmail author
Article

Abstract

Exploring certain specific dimensions of practical reasoning in law—namely the possibility of recognizing an autonomous (structurally dialectic and intentionally dialogic) subject/subject rationality—this paper concentrates on one of the main challenges that the theory of legal argumentation, or a certain standard trend within this theory (emerging from Alexy, MacCormick, Aarnio and Peczenik), considers when invoking Wróblewski’s legacy (the analytical reconstitution of argumentation as a process of justification, with different horizontal or vertical levels). In effect, this challenge means on the one hand responding to the question of “how decisions can be justified when no deductive argument is sufficient to justify them” and, on the other hand, defending the thesis that syllogism “provides” the “framework” in which all “the other arguments make sense as legal arguments” (MacCormick). Is this a plausible challenge or does it encourage possible convergence? In order to answer this question, I will allude to some relevant “anti- deductive critiques” (from the founding fathers Viehweg, Perelman and Toulmin) and a very specific jurisprudentialist understanding of legal rationality (which explores the judicium/legal system connection and a dialectics between problem and system), and I will refer to the stimulus of a certain alternative logical perspective (“legal logic beyond deduction”) that can be identified in Sartor’s “doxification of practical reasoning”. In addition, one of the main concerns of our common thematic core must not be forgotten: the confrontation between the democratic (discursive) legitimation of jurisdictio as potestas and the apparently non deliberative and non-democratic possibilities of practical–prudential rationality.

Keywords

Standard theory of argumentation Deductivism Practical reasoning Internal and external justification Anti-deductive arguments 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Alexy, Robert. 1978. Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexy, Robert. 1985. Theorie der Grundrechte, 2nd ed. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alexy, Robert. 1988. Sistema jurídico, principios jurídicos y razón práctica. In Doxa 5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alexy, Robert. 1999. My philosophy of law: The Institutionalisation of Reason. In The Law in Philosophical Perspectives, Law and Philosophy Library 41, Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alexy, Robert. 2003. On Balancing and Subsumption. A Structural Comparison. In Ratio Juris 16(4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alexy, Robert. 2009. The Reasonableness of Law. In Reasonableness and Law, ed. Sartor et al. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alexy, Robert. 2010. The dual nature of law. In Ratio Juris 23(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Atienza, Manuel. 1997. Las razones del derecho. Teorias de la argumentacion juridica. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brito, José de Sousa e. 2015. 20th Century Legal Philosophy in Portugal. In Legal Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: The Civil Law World, ed. Enrico Pattaro and Corrado Roversi. Dordrecht/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bubner, Rüdiger. 1990. Dialektik als Topik: Bausteine zu einer lebensweltlichen Theorie der Rationalität. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dunne, Joseph. 2001. Back to the Rough Ground. Practical Judgment and the Lure of Technique. Notre Dame Indiana: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Habermas, Jürgen. 1999. Anhang zu Faktizität und Geltung: Replik auf Beiträge zu einem Symposium der Cardozo Law School. In Die Einbeziehung des Anderen. Studien zur politischen Theorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heidegger, Martin. 1985. Vorträge und Aufsätze. Auflage: Neske Pfullingen.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heidegger, Martin. 2001. Sein und Zeit. 18th edition (re-impressing the 15th). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Linhares, José Manuel Aroso. 2012. Law’s cultural project and the claim to universality or the equivocalities of a familiar debate. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 25 (4): 489–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Linhares, José Manuel Aroso. 2012. Evidence (or proof?) as Law ́s Gaping Wound: A Persistent False aporia? In Boletim da Faculdade de Direito: Universidade de Coimbra 88(1).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Linhares, José Manuel Aroso. 2013. Phronêsis und Tertialität: Die Behandlung des Neuen als Kern des “geworfenen Entwurfs” des Rechts, Von der Spezifikation zum Schluss: Rhetorisches, topisches und plausibles Schließen in Normen- und, Regelsystemen ed. Lothar Philipps and Rainhard Bengez: Nomos Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Linhares, José Manuel Aroso. 2017. O binómio casos fáceis/casos difíceis e a categoria de inteligibilidade. Sistema jurídico: um contraponto indispensável no mapa do discurso jurídico contemporâneo? Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    MacCormick, Neil. 1994. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (1978), 2nd ed. Oxford. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    MacCormick, Neil. 1998. Coherence in Legal Justification. In The Philosophy of Legal Reasoning, ed. Scott Brewer. Harvard: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    MacCormick, Neil. 2005. Rhetoric and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MacCormick, Neil. 2007. Institutions of Law. An Essay in Legal Theory. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Neves, António Castanheira. 1992. El actual problema metodológico de la realización del Derecho. Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Complutense 79.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neves, António Castanheira. 1993. Metodologia Jurídica. Problemas fundamentais. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Neves, António Castanheira. 2003. O actual problema metodológico da interpretação jurídica. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Neves, António Castanheira. 1995. O actual problema metodológico da realização do direito. In DigestaEscritos acerca do Direito, do Pensamento Jurídico, da sua Metodologia e outros, volume II. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peczenik, Aleksander. 1979. Non-equivalent transformations and the law. In Argumentation und Hermeneutik in der Jurisprudenz, Rechtstheorie Beihefte (Bh RT 1), ed. Opalek Krawietz and Schramm Peczenik. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Perelman, Charles. 1999. Logique juridique. Nouvelle rhétorique, Paris: Dalloz.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Riedel, Manfred (ed.). 1972–1974. Rehabilitierung Der Praktischen Philosophie. Freiburg: Rombach Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sartor, Giovanni. 2005. Legal Reasoning: A Cognitive Approach to Law. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Viehweg, Theodor. 1953. Topik und Jurisprudenz. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Welsch, Wolfgang. 1991. Unsere postmoderne Moderne. Weinheim: Acta Humaniora.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wróblewski, Jerzy. 1992. Sądowe stosowanie prawa [The Judicial Application of Law]. ed. Zenon Bankowski and Neil MacCormick. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Coimbra Faculty of Law (Legal Theory, Philosophy of Law), University of Coimbra Institute for Legal Research (UCILeR)The University of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations