Archiwum Filozofii Prawa
i Filozofii Społecznej Journal of the Polish Section of IVR ISSN 2082-3304 Logo Polskiej Sekcji IVR Polska Sekcja IVR ↗

Research article

Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s Account of Analogy Applied to Law: the Proportional Model of Analogical Legal Reasoning

Article authors
  1. Maciej Koszowski

Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s Account of Analogy Applied to Law: the Proportional Model of Analogical Legal Reasoning

Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, nr 2(13)/2016, s. 5-13

DOI 10.36280/afpifs.2016.2.5 ↗
Issue
nr 2(13)/2016
Pages
5-13
Published
Article language
English

Polish

Translated abstract

In this paper, the author has undertaken an attempt to adjust Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s conception of analogy to the province of law. He thus sketches out a pertinent scheme of legal analogy based upon the similarity of proportions and indulges in a consideration of the merits and demerits of such a proposition. To this aim, as the proportions that are compared in such an account of analogy, the relations between the facts of the cases and their legal outcomes were chosen: one such outcome already known and one tentatively posited. Finally, however, the author’s analyses lead to the conclusion that despite its considerable theoretical attractiveness and some mystical charm, legal analogy consisting of the comparison of two proportions is either quite similar to orthodox approaches to analogical reasoning in law or too obscure for one to employ it credibly in the legal setting. In consequence, until its proponents have elucidated the workings of proportional analogy in more detail, the potential use of such a form of analogy in the province of law does not seem promising and cannot be recommended.

English

Abstract

In this paper, the author has undertaken an attempt to adjust Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s conception of analogy to the province of law. He thus sketches out a pertinent scheme of legal analogy based upon the similarity of proportions and indulges in a consideration of the merits and demerits of such a proposition. To this aim, as the proportions that are compared in such an account of analogy, the relations between the facts of the cases and their legal outcomes were chosen: one such outcome already known and one tentatively posited. Finally, however, the author’s analyses lead to the conclusion that despite its considerable theoretical attractiveness and some mystical charm, legal analogy consisting of the comparison of two proportions is either quite similar to orthodox approaches to analogical reasoning in law or too obscure for one to employ it credibly in the legal setting. In consequence, until its proponents have elucidated the workings of proportional analogy in more detail, the potential use of such a form of analogy in the province of law does not seem promising and cannot be recommended.

Keywords

  • proportion
  • proportional
  • proportionality
  • analogy
  • legal
  • Chaïm Perelman
  • Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
  • account
  • law
  • reasoning
  • approach
  • logic
  • apply
  • analogically
Full text PDF How to cite

References

58 reference entries

References

  1. Ajdukiewicz, K. (1995). Zarys logiki. Warszawa: Państwowe Zakłady Wydawnictw Szkolnych.

  2. Aldisert, R.J. (1997). Logic for Lawyers. A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking. Notre Dame: LexisNexis.

  3. Alexander, L., Sherwin, E. (2008). Demystifying Legal Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  4. Bańkowski, Z. (1991). Analogical Reasoning and Legal Institutions, In: P. Nerhot (Ed.), Legal Knowledge and Analogy. Fragments of Legal Epistemology, Hermeneutics and Linguistics. Dordrecht: Springer.

  5. Biegański, W. (1909). Wnioskowanie z analogii. Lwów: Polskie Towarzystwo Filozoficzne.

  6. Brewer, S. (1996). Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy. Harvard Law Review 109, 923-1028.

  7. Brożek, B. (2007). Rationality and Discourse: Towards a Normative Model of Applying Law. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.

  8. Burton, S.J. (2007). An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning. Austin: Aspen Publishers.

  9. Calleros, C.R. (2006). Legal Method and Writing. New York: Aspen Publishers.

  10. Chauvin, T., Stawecki, T., Winczorek, P. (2012). Wstęp do prawoznawstwa. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.

  11. Christie, G.C. (1982). Law, Norms & Authority. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co.

  12. Cross, R. (1968). Precedent in English Law. Oxford: Clarendon.

  13. Dąmbska, I. (1962). Dwa studia z teorii naukowego poznania. Toruń: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

  14. Golding, M.P. (2001). Legal Reasoning. Peterborough: Broadview Press.

  15. Hage, J. (2005). Studies in Legal Logic. Dordrecht: Springer.

  16. Hesse, M.B. (1970). Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

  17. Holyoak, K.J., Thagard, P. (1996). Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  18. Hunter, D. (2008). Teaching and Using Analogy in Law. Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors 2. Retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/absract=1089669.

  19. Jamróz, A. (2011). Wprowadzenie do prawoznawstwa. Warszawa: LexisNexis.

  20. Koszowski, M. (2014). Rozumowanie per analogiam w prawie precedensowym: dwa ujęcia analogii. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Sectio G IUS 2, 61–87.

  21. Lamond, G. (2016). Precedent and Analogy in Legal Reasoning. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/.

  22. Lechniak, M. (2006). Elementy logiki dla prawników. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.

  23. Lenoble, J. (1991). The Function of Analogy in Law: Return to Kant and Wittgentstein. In: P. Nerhot (Ed.), Legal Knowledge and Analogy. Fragments of Legal Epistemology, Hermeneutics and Linguistics. Dordrecht: Springer.

  24. Leszczyński, L. (2004). Zagadnienia teorii stosowania prawa. Doktryna i tezy orzecznictwa. Kraków: Zakamycze.

  25. Levi, E.H. (1949). An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  26. Levi, E.H. (1965). The Nature of Judicial Reasoning. The University of Chicago Law Review 32(3), 395-409.

  27. MacCormick, N. (1978). Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  28. MacCormick, N. (2005). Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  29. Maris, C.W. (1991). Milking the Meter – On Analogy, Universalizability and World Views. In: P. Nerhot (Ed.), Legal Knowledge and Analogy. Fragments of Legal Epistemology, Hermeneutics and Linguistics. Dordrecht: Springer.

  30. Mill, J.S. (1882). A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers.

  31. Morawski, L. (2006). Zasady wykładni prawa. Toruń: TNOiK.

  32. Nawrot, O., Przybylski-Lewandowski, F. (2007). Wnioskowania prawnicze. In: J. Zajadło (Ed.), Leksykon współczesnej teorii i filozofii prawa: 100 podstawowych pojęć. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.

  33. Nerhot, P. (1991). Legal Knowledge and Meaning (The Example of Legal Analogy). In: P. Nerhot (Ed.), Legal Knowledge and Analogy. Fragments of Legal Epistemology, Hermeneutics and Linguistics. Dordrecht: Springer.

  34. Niiniluoto, I. (1988). Analogy and Similarity in Scientific Reasoning. In: D.H. Helman (Ed.), Analogical Reasoning: Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science, and Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer.

  35. Nowacki, J. (1966). Analogia legis. Warszawa: PWN.

  36. Nowacki, J. (1974). Problem normotwórczości wnioskowania przez analogię. Studia Prawnicze 1.

  37. Nowacki, J., Tobor, Z. (2007). Wstęp do prawoznawstwa. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.

  38. Opałek, K., Wróblewski, J. (1969). Zagadnienia teorii prawa. Warszawa: PWN.

  39. Patryas, W. (1994). Elementy logiki dla prawników. Poznań: Ars boni et aequi.

  40. Peczenik, A. (2009). On Law and Reason. Dordrecht: Springer.

  41. Perelman, Ch. (1984). Logika prawnicza: Nowa retoryka. Warszawa: PWN.

  42. Perelman, Ch. (2004). Imperium retoryki: Retoryka i argumentacja. Warszawa: PWN.

  43. Perelman, Ch., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

  44. Posner, R.A. (1990). The Problems of Jurisprudence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  45. Pulka, Z. (2008). Podstawy prawa: Podstawowe pojęcia prawa i prawoznawstwa. Poznań: Forum Naukowe.

  46. Raz, J. (1979). The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  47. Schauer, F. (2009). Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  48. Smoktunowicz, E. (1970). Analogia w prawie administracyjnym. Warszawa: PWN.

  49. Stelmach, J. (2003). Kodeks argumentacyjny dla prawników. Kraków: Zakamycze.

  50. Sunstein, C. (1996). Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.

  51. Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  52. White, J. (1996). Analogical reasoning, In: D. Patterson (Ed.), A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Malden: Wiley & Sons.

  53. Wolter, W., Lipczyńska, M. (1980). Elementy logiki: wykład dla prawników. Warszawa: PWN.

  54. Weinreb, L.L. (2005). Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  55. Wróblewski, J. (1988). Sądowe stosowanie prawa. Warszawa: PWN.

  56. Wróblewski, J. (1992). The Judicial Application of Law. Dordrecht: Springer.

  57. Zaccaria, G. (1991). Analogy as Legal Reasoning – The Hermeneutic Foundation of the Analogical Procedure. In: P. Nerhot (Ed.), Legal Knowledge and Analogy. Fragments of Legal Epistemology, Hermeneutics and Linguistics. Dordrecht: Springer.

  58. Ziembiński, Z. (2007). Logika praktyczna. Warszawa: PWN.

Publication information

Author and affiliation

Maciej Koszowski

Jan Długosz University in Częstochowa

Issue data

Issue nr 2(13)/2016

Pages
5-13
Published
AccessOpen LicenceCC BY 4.0 ↗

How to cite

Bibliographic description and verified export formats.

Format AFPiFS

M. Koszowski, Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s Account of Analogy Applied to Law: the Proportional Model of Analogical Legal Reasoning, „Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej” nr 2(13)/2016, s. 5–13, DOI: 10.36280/afpifs.2016.2.5

Export citation data