[lit-ideas] Re: Hartiana
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 21:03:11 -0400
Conceptual cross-connection and coherence in legal reasoning
From:
Dickson, Julie, "Interpretation and Coherence in Legal Reasoning", The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta
(ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/legal-reas-interpret/>.
Alexy and Peczenik define coherence in legal reasoning in terms of the
degree of approximation to a perfect supportive structure exhibited by a set of
propositions, and list ten criteria by reference to which coherence thus
defined can be evaluated.
The criteria are:
(1) the number of supportive relations
(2) the length of the supportive chains
(3) the strength of the support
(4) the connections between supportive chains
(5) priority orders between reasons
(6) reciprocal justification
(7) generality
--> (8) conceptual cross-connections
(9) number of cases a theory covers, and
(10) diversity of fields of life to which the theory is applicable.
And I guess H. L. A. Hart would agree.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
