Abstract
The aim of this chapter is to advance the following theses: 1. The concept of coherence in law may be best understood in terms of constraint satisfaction; 2. Coherence-based inference is an explanatory kind of inference; 3. There are three main operations whereby coherence may be built in the course of legal decision making: subtraction, addition, and re-interpretation; 4. Epistemic responsibility is a pivotal component in a theory of legal coherence; 5. Coherentist standards of legal justification vary with context; 6. Coherence-based legal reasoning is a variety of reasoning about ends; 7. There are three main reasons why coherence is a value worth pursuing in law: epistemic reasons, practical reasons, and constitutive reasons; 8. The main motivation of legal coherentism is to provide a non-skeptical alternative to formalism; 9. The coherence theory of legal justification is psychologically plausible and this provides an argument in favor of this theory; 10. Legal coherentism is an agent-centered theory of justification. In what follows, I shall discuss in some detail each of these theses.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
