The Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Teleological Argumentation in a Legal Context

Abstract

In this article the author develops a framework for a pragma-dialectical reconstruction of teleological argumentation in a legal context. Ideas taken from legal theory are integrated in a pragma-dialectical model for analyzing and evaluating argumentation, thus providing a more systematic and elaborate framework for assessing the quality of teleological arguments in a legal context. Teleological argumentation in a legal context is approached as a specific form of pragmatic argumentation. The legal criteria that are relevant for the evaluation of teleological argumentation are discussed and translated in terms of critical questions that are relevant for the evaluation of the various forms of teleological argumentation.

Prototypical Argumentative Patterns in a Legal Context: The Role of Pragmatic Argumentation in the Justification of Judicial Decisions

“…It is stated that the result Y' has a particular 7 For a description of the various relevant critical questions belonging to pragmatic argumentation in a legal context see Feteris (2002). 8 For a discussion of a pragma-dialectical reconstruction of the various forms of teleological argumentation see Feteris (2008a).…”

“…Purpose or goal P is intended by the legislator/a rational goal objectively prescribed by the valid legal order 10 For a discussion of a pragma-dialectical reconstruction of the various forms of teleological argumentation see Feteris (2008a). For a discussion of the pragma-dialectical reconstruction of argumentation in which courts refer to the intention of the legislator see Plug (2005).…”

Review of Fairclough & Fairclough (2012): Political discourse analysis. A method for advanced students

“…In other words, according to the authors, the goal-premise and the circumstantial one need to be considered interdependently as support of the claim, while the value-premise stands in support of the goal premise and only indirectly of the claim (on argumentation structures, see Snoeck Henkemans 1992). However, in studies regarding the structure of the scheme for pragmatic argument (see Garssen 1997;Feteris 2002;Ihnen 2012), which are not discussed by the authors, the value premise is taken to be coordinatively and not subordinatively linked to the goal premise. The question here is not merely one of schematic representation but of significance to the role that each premise is considered to play in the defense of a normative claim.…”

“In Other Words, …”: A Corpus-based Study of Reformulation in Judicial Discourse

“…judgments. These received a well-deserved consideration from legal theorists (see McCormick/Summers 1997) and argumentation scholars (see Feteris 1999Feteris , 2002 by reason of their status of 'ultimate aims', as it were, of judicial activity, the apex of judicial proceedings envisaging the application of legislative norms. In particular, argumentation as a constitutive aspect of judgments has been pointed out by several scholars: Perelman (1976) singles out the historical evolution of judicial discourse, by illustrating that the obligation to motivate decisions, as established in the aftermath of the French Revolution, began to be intertwined with the pressing need to ground the interpretation of norms as equitably as possible after World War II, when it was clear that strict adherence to the letter of legal norms could produce even criminal results.…”