Abstract
In this paper, I argue that legal philosophers ought to focus more on problems of legal reasoning. This is a field with many philosophically interesting questions to consider, but also, a field in which legal philosophers can contribute the most to the study and the practice of law. Neither legal practitioners nor legal scholars reason with the same care and precision as philosophers do. Against this background, I suggest that the following three types of questions regarding legal reasoning are especially worthy of serious consideration. The first is that of the relevance of the theory of reasons holism to legal reasoning. The second is the question of how to analyze (first-order) legal statements in a way that does not undermine the rationality of legal reasoning. And the third is the question of whether legal arguments are to be understood as deductive arguments, inductive arguments, or both, and if so how.
Highlights
The topic of this conference is the fundamental problem(s) of contemporary legal philosophy
My central claim is going to be that legal philosophers ought to focus more than they have done so far on problems of legal reasoning
The study of legal reasoning, at least as it appears in court opinions, has not received the attention it deserves
Summary
The topic of this conference is the fundamental problem(s) of contemporary legal philosophy. My central claim is going to be that legal philosophers ought to focus more than they have done so far on problems of legal reasoning Is this a field with many philosophically interesting questions to consider, but it is in my estimation, the field in which legal philosophers can contribute the most to both the practice and the study of law. Perhaps the most important difference is that whereas legal practitioners and legal scholars typically approach reasoning and interpretation in an intuitive way, emphasizing rules of thumb, common sense, and the value of workable legal solutions to problematic cases, philosophers, they may reason intuitively and emphasize common sense, often take care to make the logical structure of the relevant argument explicit by formulating as precisely as possible both the conclusion and the premises, and by subjecting the argument formulated to close logical as well as substantive scrutiny, where such scrutiny typically involves paying close attention to the content, structure, and function of any relevant concepts. The study of legal reasoning, at least as it appears in court opinions, has not received the attention it deserves
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
