Analogical Arguments in Ethics and Law: A Defence of Deductivism

Shecaira, Fábio Perin

doi:10.22329/il.v33i3.3778

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2.]. Fabio Shecaira accepts Guarini's criticism but defends Waller's scheme [Shecaira 2013]. Shecaira holds that Waller's scheme is in fact composed of two schemes, one of which is deductive and the other abductive [Shecaira 2013].…”

Section: Eliminativism Versus Reductionismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fabio Shecaira accepts Guarini's criticism but defends Waller's scheme [Shecaira 2013]. Shecaira holds that Waller's scheme is in fact composed of two schemes, one of which is deductive and the other abductive [Shecaira 2013]. However, Botting argues that both Guarini and Shecaira are wrong in think- 23 Botting never explicitly mentions the linking premise 1.1.1 ′ but given 1.1.1 and his commitment to deductivism and to the logical minimum (the logical minimum is the associated conditional to the explicit premises of an argumentation) it appears that he must be committed to 1.1.1 ′ as the linking premise for 1.1.1.…”

Section: Eliminativism Versus Reductionismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A defense of analogy inference as sui generis

Juthe¹

2019

LLP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accounts of analogical inference are usually categorized into four broad groups: abductive, deductive, inductive and sui generis. The purpose of this paper is to defend a sui generis model of analogical inference. It focuses on the sui generis account, as developed by Juthe [2005, 2009, 2015, 2016] and Botting's [2017] criticism of it. This paper uses the pragmadialectical theory of argumentation as the methodological framework for analyzing and reconstructing argumentation. The paper has two main points. First, that Juthe's arguments against a deductive interpretation of prima facie analogy argumentation remain unaffected by Botting's criticism, which means that many of the reasons against deductive reformulation of analogy argumentation still stand. The additional argument, which Botting himself brings up, that a deductive interpretation cannot account for the cumulative effect of analogies, just provides further reason to reject deductivism. The second main point of this paper is that an inductive interpretation of analogical inference also fails. There are constitutional differences between inductive and analogical inference that cannot be bridged. The result is a firm defense of the sui generis view of analogical inference.

show abstract

Section: Eliminativism Versus Reductionismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Eliminativism Versus Reductionismmentioning

confidence: 99%

A defense of analogy inference as sui generis

Juthe¹

2019

LLP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following Bruce Waller (2001), I have argued that the best analogical arguments in ethics and law are those that express, or at least provide the interpreter with enough elements to reconstruct, the normative principle tying together source and target of the analogy (Shecaira 2013). Here is a familiar example: "It is not morally wrong to smoke tobacco.…”

Section: Analogical and Pro-and-con Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Value of Methodological Deductivism in Argument Construction

Shecaira

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“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 (with plausible premises) 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.

show abstract

“…180-183), and defends their status as defeasible a priori arguments. He shares with Shecaira (2013) the belief that synthetic a priori warrants are typical of moral arguments (Freeman 2013, pp. 179-180).…”

Section: Types Of Analogiesmentioning

confidence: 99%