- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Legal logic? Or can we do without?
Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2):197-210 (2003)
Abstract
In this paper the thesis is argued that there is no need for a special legal logic to deal with the defeasibility of legal arguments. An important argument for this thesis is that legal judgements ask for a complete justification and that such a complete justification requires a deductively valid argument.Other Versions
No versions found
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
Introduction: Dialectical legal argument: Formal and informal models. [REVIEW]Eveline Feteris & Henry Prakken - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2):107-113.
George C. Christie, the notion of an ideal audience in legal argument.Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon - 2001 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (1):59-71.
Review of Jaap Hage's law and defeasibility. [REVIEW]Eugenio Bulygin - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2):245-250.
Arno R. lodder, dialaw: On legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation. Law and philosophy library vol. 42. [REVIEW]Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2):265-276.
Henry Prakken (1997). Logical tools for modelling legal argument. A study of defeasible reasoning in law.Bart Verheij - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (1):35-65.
Jaap Hage, reasoning with rules: An essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Law and philosophy library. [REVIEW]Ronald P. Loui - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (4):353-358.
The bayesianism debate in legal scholarship.Ephraim Nissan - 2001 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (2):199-214.
Introduction to the special issue on applications and evaluation of large language models in the legal domain.Jack G. Conrad, Debasis Ganguly, Kripabandhu Ghosh & Saptarshi Ghosh - forthcoming - Artificial Intelligence and Law:1-12.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
177 (#229,897)
6 months
46 (#183,912)
2009-01-28
Downloads
177 (#229,897)
6 months
46 (#183,912)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Defeasibility, Law, and Argumentation: A Critical View from an Interpretative Standpoint.Francesca Poggi - 2020 - Argumentation 35 (3):409-434.
References found in this work
Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.Douglas Richard Hofstadter - 1979 - Hassocks, England: Basic Books.
Try MATCHA Writer if you're interested in citing directly from PhilPapers and certifying your authorship.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation