On the Contrary: Inferential Analysis and Ontological Assumptions of the A Contrario Argument

Canale, Damiano; Tuzet, Giovanni

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1075145

SSRN Journal

2007

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1075145

|View full text |Cite

On the Contrary: Inferential Analysis and Ontological Assumptions of the A Contrario Argument

Damiano Canale

Giovanni Tuzet

Abstract: Abstract:We remark that the A Contrario Argument is an ambiguous technique of justification of judicial decisions. We distinguish two uses and versions of it, strong and weak, taking as example the normative sentence "Underprivileged citizens are permitted to apply for State benefit". According to the strong version, only underprivileged citizens are permitted to apply for State benefit, so stateless persons are not. According to the weak, the law does not regulate the position of underprivileged stateless per… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2009

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite1

Independent0

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…19 19 On the structure of these inferential rules and their applications in legal reasoning, see Canale and Tuzet 2008. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of Pragmatic Conceptualism: On the Methodology Problem in Jurisprudence

Canale¹

2009

Ratio Juris

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to address some of the main issues of contemporary jurisprudential methodology by considering the contribution of Jules Coleman to this subject. After a description of Coleman's methodological approach and a clarification of its philosophical background, the paper focuses on some related problems, such as the relation between linguistic meaning and conceptual content, the nature of legal concepts, the different aspects of the normativity of content, and the revisability of conceptual truths.In the past decade the debate on jurisprudential methodology has seen a notable revival of interest. On the one hand, the traditional terms of this debate have been enriched with new argumentative resources, which are meant to clarify whether jurisprudential claims can describe the social reality of law or necessarily aim at modifying it. 1 On the other hand, a further philosophical challenge, namely that of naturalized jurisprudence, has attempted to reframe jurisprudential methodology by claiming that 1 To put it another way, in Anglo-American jurisprudence the methodology problem traditionally concerns the possibility of descriptive jurisprudence as opposed to the idea that an inquiry into the nature of law unavoidably accomplishes a normative task. The fundamental terms of this opposition have been established by the Hart-Dworkin debate. According to Hart, jurisprudence can offer a normatively neutral description of law, which does not necessarily contribute to justify legal contents (Hart 1994); according to Dworkin, a jurisprudential account of law cannot be anything but a normative inquiry into the conditions under which the use of collective force is justified (Dworkin 1986, 53, 67, 90). The Hart-Dworkin debate has triggered off a flourishing discussion on jurisprudential methodology, which aims either at specifying this leading picture or at revising it: cf.

show abstract

“…19 19 On the structure of these inferential rules and their applications in legal reasoning, see Canale and Tuzet 2008. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of Pragmatic Conceptualism: On the Methodology Problem in Jurisprudence

Canale¹

2009

Ratio Juris

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

On the Contrary: Inferential Analysis and Ontological Assumptions of the A Contrario Argument

Cited by 1 publication

References 16 publications

Consequences of Pragmatic Conceptualism: On the Methodology Problem in Jurisprudence

Consequences of Pragmatic Conceptualism: On the Methodology Problem in Jurisprudence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About