University of Szczecin

English abstract: Since George Lakoff and Mark Johnson published a book entitled Metaphors We Live By, metaphors and their role in everyday life have been recognised. Metaphor has henceforth ceased to be a means only of poetic imagination and rhetorical embellishment. It began to be seen also as a form of human thinking, a tool of cognition. Metaphor began to be seen in areas of life where it had hitherto been absent. These areas included law. However, the enthusiasm of authors who see the great role of metaphorical imagery in law is not justified. An analysis of the examples of metaphors in legal texts given in scientific studies indicates too much freedom in qualifying certain expressions as metaphors and seeing their role or usefulness where there is none – that is, also in legal texts and in the interpretation of law. Metaphors are mistaken for phraseological compounds and for previously metaphorical expressions that have permanently lost this character as a result of conventionalization or lexicalisation. The potential effect of adopting a cognitivist perspective has previously been otherwise achieved in the legal sciences at the expected level. The results indicated as possible with the tools of cognitive science are nothing new, and the possibility of achieving them is either debatable or impossible. The conceptual metaphor, on the other hand, can play an important role when it comes to the justification of judicial or administrative decisions, the content of law textbooks, statements of doctrinal representatives with regard to the law Using the language of cognitive science, the radial structures of legal and ethical concepts can more promisingly be made the subject of research, which can enable the coexistence of humans and artificial intelligence. The research material was mainly investigated using the method of linguistic analysis.

Keywords: metaphor, phraseological association, conceptual motivation, radial structures, legal reasoning, legal cognition, interpretation of law

Language: Polish

Published: nr 2(39) 2024, p. 19-33.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2024.2.19

Download: Download

Number of downloads: 248

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

University of Warsaw

English abstract: This paper presents practical reasoning in the light of John M. Finnis’ new natural law theory. Finnis’ views were shaped by Aquinas’ thoughts on natural law but he was also strongly inspired by Germain Grisez’ new approach, so his theory could be named a new natural law theory. The aim of this paper is to analyse the concept of legal reasoning as practical reasoning, which Finnis intended mainly as a strong critique of Ronald Dworkin’s theory of legal reasoning based on the concept of the one right answer. According to the author of this paper, Finnis’ critical approach to Dworkin leads to a gradual extension of the former’s concept of legal reasoning to include positivistic aspects (rapprochement with Joseph Raz’ views) and institutional aspects (rapprochement with Neil MacCormick’s views). Therefore, Finnis’ theory of legal reasoning seems to be a model example of the rapprochement between natural law and legal positivism in contemporary philosophy of law.

Keywords: John M. Finnis, natural law, legal reasoning, practical reasoning, Ronald Dworkin, one right answer

Language: Polish

Published: Number 1(21)/2020, pp. 84-98.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2020.1.84

Download: Download
Number of downloads: 738

University of Warsaw

Abstract: This paper traces, examines, and demonstrates Neil MacCormick’s theory of legal reasoning and its evolution. MacCormick’s views were shaped gradually so his theory could be divided into two main stages. Therefore, the use of the diachronic approach is justified. The aim of this paper is to analyse the difference between the theses of the theory of legal reasoning explained in Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (1978) and general revisions to this theory marked in Rhetoric and the Rule of Law (2005). According to the author, the most important change in MacCormick’s theory of legal reasoning is an examination of the role of deductive reasoning in the process of judicial reasoning. This change leads to an extension of the logical aspects of MacCormick’s theory of legal reasoning (legal syllogism) to include rhetorical aspects (argumentative character of law) and ethical aspects (the idea of the rule of law). The evolution of the MacCormick’s theory of legal reasoning seems to be a model example of the changes in contemporary philosophy of law.

Keywords: legal reasoning, MacCormick, legal syllogism, rhetoric, rule of law

Language: Original printed in Polish, English online translation

Received: 20.02.2018
Accepted: 19.05.2018

Published: Number 1(19)/2019, pp. 63-78

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2019.1.63ENG

Download file: Download
Number of downloads: 522

Jagiellonian University

English abstract: The aim of the article is to present a model of legal reasoning based of the concept of coherence, as this concept is understood in recent developments of cognitive science. More precisely, the model, hereafter referred to as CMLR (Coherence Model of Legal Reasoning) is based on the constraint satisfaction theory of coherence, elaborated and defended by Paul Thagard. The claim of the author is that CMLR appears very satisfactory when assessed against criteria typically employed for evaluation of legal-theoretical models of argumentation. It is able to represent legal reasoning either as a neural network or, more traditionally, as a formal dialogue game. In consequence, CMLR offers a plausible “third road” between traditional deductive and non-deductive models of legal thinking.

Keywords: legal argumentation, legal reasoning, coherence, cohesion

Language: Polish

Published: Number 1(1)/2010, pp. 19-38.

Download file: Download

Number of downloads: 465

References:

1. Ajdukiewicz K., Zagadnienia i kierunki filozofii, Kęty–Warszawa 2003.
2. Alexy R., A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, Oxford 1989.
3. Alexy R., On Balancing and Subsumption. A Structural Comparison, „Ratio Juris“ 2003/4.
4. Alexy R., A Theory of Constitutional Rights, Oxford 2002.
5. Alexy R., The Weight Formula, w: J. Stelmach, B. Brożek, W. Załuski (red.), Studies in the Philosophy of Law 3, Kraków 2007.
6. Amayi A., Formal models of coherence and legal epistemology, „Artificial Intelligence and Law” 2007/15.
7. Bechtela W., Abrahamsen A., Connectionism and the Mind. An Introduction to Paralell Processing in Networks, Cambridge 1991.
8. Bench-Capon T., Dunne P.E., Argumentation in artificial intelligence, „Artificial Intelligence” 2007/171.
9. BonJour L., The Structure of Empirical Knowledge, Cambridge (Mass.)-London 1985.
10. Brożek B., Defeasibility of Legal Reasoning, Kraków 2004.
11. Brożek B., Kilka uwag o logice norm, w: J. Stelmach (red.), Studia z filozofii prawa, Kraków 2001.
12. Brożek B., Rationality and Discourse. Towards a Normative Model of Applying Law, Warszawa 2007.
13. Daniels N., Justice and Justification. Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice, Cambridge 1996.
14. Dworkin R., The Model of Rules, “University of Chicago Law Review” 1965/35.
15. Gizbert-Studnicki T., Zasady i reguły prawne, “Państwo i Prawo” 1988/3.
16. Grabowski A., Judicial Argumentation and Pragmatics. A Study on the Extension of the Theory of Legal Argumentation, Kraków 1999.
17. Hage J., Reasoning with rules, Dordrecht 1997.
18. Holyoak K., Thagard P., Mental Leaps. Analogy in Creative Thought, Cambridge-London 1995.
19. Jørgensen J., Imperatives and Logic, „Erkenntnis“ 1937–1938/7.
20. MacCormick N., Summers R., Interpreting Statutes. A comparative study, Dartmouth 1991.
21. MacCormick N., Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory, Oxford 1978.
22. Lehrer K., Theory of Knowledge, London 1990.
23. Malinowski A., Nowak L., Problemy modelowania w teorii prawa, „Państwo i Prawo” 1972/2.
24. Marciszewski W. (red.), Mała encyklopedia logiki, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1970.
25. Płeszka K., Uzasadnianie decyzji interpretacyjnych przez ich konsekwencje, Kraków 1996.
26. Prakken H., Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law, Dordrecht 1997.
27. Prakken H., Sartor G., A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conficting Arguments in Legal Reasoning, „Artificial Intelligence and Law” 1996/4.
28. Putnam H., Reason, truth and history, Cambridge 1981.
29. Rescher N., Dialectics. A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, Albany 1977.
30. Rescher N., The Coherence Theory of Truth, Oxford 1973.
31. Stelmach J., Naturalistyczny i antynaturalistyczny model teorii prawa, “Studia Prawnicze” 1984/3–4.
32. Stelmach J., Brożek B., Metody prawnicze, Kraków 2006.
33. Tarski A., O pojęciu wynikania logicznego, „Przegląd Filozoficzny” 1936/39.
34. Thagard P., Ethical Coherence, „Philosophical Psychology“ 1998/4.
35. Thagard P., Coherence in Thought and Action, Cambridge-London 2000.
36. Thagard P., Explanatory Coherence, „Behavioral and Brain Sciences” 1989/12.
37. Thagard P., Mind. An Introduction to Cognitive Science, Cambridge-London 2005.
38. Thagard P., Verbeurgt K., Coherence as constraint satisfaction, „Cognitive Science“ 1998/22.
39. Volpe G., A Minimalist Solution to Jørgensen’s Dillemma, „Ratio Juris” 1999/12.
40. Woleński J., Epistemologia. Poznanie, prawda, wiedza, realizm, Warszawa 2005.
41. Woleński J., Z zagadnień analitycznej filozofii prawa, „Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace prawnicze” 92.
42. Wróblewski J., Sądowe stosowanie prawa, Warszawa 1988.

University of Warsaw

English abstract: The paper shows some of the problems related to the formalization of legal reasonings under analogia legis and a contrario, and discusses some of the specific proposals in this regard. Built formal models are based on the concept of monotonic logic and nonmonotonic logic. These models are mainly illustrative and have limited explanatory power. Their reliability can only be achieved under certain additional conditions.

Keywords: formalization, legal reasoning, analogia legis, a contrario

Language: Polish

Received: 03.04.2017
Accepted: 22.05.2017

Published: Number 2(15)/2017, pp. 26-37.

Download file: Download

Number of downloads: 383

University of Łódź

English abstract: The paper is the proposal of the discussion upon the utility of the cognitive linguistics’ tools for legal application, especially within the field of legal interpretation and legal reasoning. Cognitive linguistics is the school of linguistics and cognitive science, developing from 1970s of the XX century, researching on language and mind and their intersection. The analysis of the instances originating in the Polish law in force, made by the means of different concepts of cognitive linguistics (prototypes, radial categories, idealized cognitive models, conceptual metaphors) is here the basis to formulate some postulates concerning the way of understanding and differentiation between extensive interpretation and analogy. The instances and postulates simultaneously let one distinguish those linguistic changes, which inevitably occur in time, and which should be recognised as the domain of linguistic interpretation.

Keywords: cognitive linguistics, interpretation, extensive interpretation, legal reasoning, analogy

Language: Polish

Received: 29.09.2016
Accepted: 31.10.2016

Published: Number 1(14)/2017, pp. 125-140.

Download file: Download

Number of downloads: 540

Jan Długosz University in Częstochowa

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.

Language: English

Keywords: proportion, proportional, proportionality, analogy, legal, Chaïm Perelman, Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, account, law, reasoning, approach, logic, apply, analogically

Published: Number 2(13)/2016, pp. 5-13.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2016.2.5

Download file: Download

Number of downloads: 1,549