1887
Volume 9, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper outlines a non-exhaustive inventory of presumptive argument schemes that can be used by legislators to rationally argue for and against the legitimacy of legislative ends. The inventory has both a descriptive and normative dimension. The inventory is descriptive because it is partly based on the empirical observation of arguments actually used by legislators in a sample of lawmaking debates. However, the inventory is also normative because – as I shall argue in this paper – the schemes identified in the sample are presumptive arguments schemes. They are therefore schemes with a claim to rationality, provided that certain conditions are met. The schemes included in the inventory are: the scheme of instrumental argumentation, the scheme from unintended consequences, the scheme from values, the schemes from model and antimodel, and the schemes from social demand.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.19010.ihn
2020-12-17
2021-01-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Albert, Hans
    1985Treatise on Critical Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published in 1968) 10.1515/9781400854929
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400854929 [Google Scholar]
  2. Atienza, Manuel
    1997Contribución a una Teoría de la Legislación. Madrid: Civitas.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2005 “Reasoning and Legislation.” InThe Theory and Practice of Legislation, ed. by Luc J. Wintgens . 297–317. Farnham: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkinson, Katie , and Trevor Bench-Capon
    2007 “Practical Reasoning as Presumptive Argumentation using Action Based Alternating Transition Systems.” Artificial Intelligence171: 855–874. 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blair, J. Anthony
    1998 “Walton’s Argument Schemes from Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development”. InProceedings of the Fourth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Ed. By Frans H. van Eemeren , J. Anthony Blair , Rob Grootendorst and Charles Willard . Retrieved from: rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-1998-waltons-argumentation-schemes-for-presumptive-reasoning-a-critique-and-development/
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bohman, James , and William Rehg
    2017 “Jürgen Habermas.” InThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. By Edward N. Zalta . Retrieved fromhttps://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/habermas/
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bratman, Michael
    1987 Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  8. Bulygin, Eugenio
    1991 “Teoría y Técnica de la Legislación.” InAnálisis Lógico y Derecho [Logical Analysis and Law], ed. by Carlos E. Alchourrón , and Eugenio Bulygin . 409–415. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Feteris, Eveline
    2002 A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context. Argumentation16 (3): 349–367. 10.1023/A:1019999606665
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019999606665 [Google Scholar]
  10. Freeman, James B.
    2013 “What types of arguments are there?”. OSSA Conference Archive. 50. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/50
    [Google Scholar]
  11. García Amado, J. Antonio
    1988Teorías de la Tópica Jurídica. Madrid: Civitas.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2000 “Razón Práctica y Teoría de la Legislación [Practical Reason and Theory of Legislation].” Derechos y Libertades: Revista del Instituto Bartolomé de las Casas9: 299–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Habermas, Jürgen
    2004The Theory of Communicative Action. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. (Original work published in 1984).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1996Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, CA: MIT Press. (Original work published in 1992) 10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2001 “On the Pragmatic, the Ethical, and the Moral Employment of Practical Reason.” InJustification and Application. Remarks on Discourse Ethics, 1–17. Cambridge, Massachusetts/ London, England: MIT Press. (First MIT edition 1994).
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 1990Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, C. Lenhardt and S. W. Nicholsen (trans). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Originally published in 1983).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hastings, Arthur
    1963 A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.
  18. Historia de la Ley Nº 20.634
    Historia de la Ley Nº 20.634 2012 Otorga Beneficios a los Deudores del Crédito con Garantía Estatal y Modifica la Ley N° 20.027.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Karpen, Ulrich
    1986 “Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Gesetzgebungslehre in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [The current status of legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany].” Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung1: 5–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kelsen, Hans
    2007General Theory of Law and State. New York: Clark. (Original work published in 1945).
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Marcilla Córdoba, Gema
    2013 “Razón Práctica, Creación de normas y Principio Democrático: Una Reflexión sobre los Ámbitos de la Argumentación Legislativa [Practical Reason, the Creation of Norms and the Democratic Principle].” Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez47: 43–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Perelman, Chaim , and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    2000The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published in 1958).
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Pitkin, Hanna F.
    1967The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California. 10.1525/9780520340503
    https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520340503 [Google Scholar]
  24. Schwartz, Shalom H.
    1992 “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 countries.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology25: 1–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Toulmin, Stephen
    2003) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. (original work published in 1958) 10.1017/CBO9780511840005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005 [Google Scholar]
  26. Van der Weide, Tom L. , Frank Dignum , John-Jules Ch. Meyer , Henry Prakken , and Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk
    2010 “Practical Reasoning Using Values: Giving Meaning to Values.” InProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ed. by Peter McBurney . 79–93. Budapest, Hungary. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑12805‑9_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_5 [Google Scholar]
  27. Van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Von Wright, Georg
    1972 On so-called practical inference. Acta Sociologica15: 39–53. 10.1177/000169937201500104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/000169937201500104 [Google Scholar]
  29. Walton, Douglas , and Erik C. W. Krabbe
    1995Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts for Interpersonal Reasoning. NY: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Walton, Douglas
    1996Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1999Appeal to Popular Opinion. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2007 “Evaluating Practical Reasoning.” Synthese157: 197–240. 10.1007/s11229‑007‑9157‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9157-x [Google Scholar]
  33. 2013 Value-based Practical Reasoning, From Knowledge Representation to Argumentation. InAI, Law and Policy Making: a Festschrift in Honour of Trevor Bench-Capon, ed. by K. Atkinson , H. Prakken and A. Wyner . 259–282. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Walton, Douglas , and Chris Reed
    2002 “Argumentation Schemes and Defeasible Inferences.” Paper prsented at theWorkshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lyon.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Walton, Douglas , Chris Reed , and Fabrizio Macagno
    2008Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  36. Wróblewski, Jerzy
    1979 “A Model of Rational Law-Making.” ARSPLXV (2): 187–201.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.19010.ihn
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error