Deliberating over legislative ends
An inventory of goal-(de)legitimizing argument schemes
This paper outlines a non-exhaustive inventory of presumptive argument schemes that can be used by legislators to
rationally argue for and against the legitimacy of legislative ends. The inventory has both a descriptive and normative dimension. The
inventory is descriptive because it is partly based on the empirical observation of arguments actually used by legislators in a sample of
lawmaking debates. However, the inventory is also normative because – as I shall argue in this paper – the schemes identified in the sample
are presumptive arguments schemes. They are therefore schemes with a claim to rationality, provided that certain conditions are met. The
schemes included in the inventory are: the scheme of instrumental argumentation, the scheme from unintended consequences, the scheme from
values, the schemes from model and antimodel, and the schemes from social demand.
Article outline
- 1.The rationality of legislation: Can we rationally justify legislative ends?
- 2.Rational deliberation about legislative ends: A Habermasian account
- 3.Causal goal-(de)legitimizing schemes in lawmaking debates
- Scheme of instrumental argumentation
- Scheme from unintended consequences
- 4.Non-causal goal-(de)legitimizing schemes in lawmaking debates
- Scheme from values
- Schemes from model and antimodel
- Schemes from social demand
- 5.The normative force of the argument schemes in the inventory
- 6.Concluding remarks
- Notes
-
References
References (36)
References
Albert, Hans. 1985. Treatise on Critical Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published in 1968). ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Atienza, Manuel. 1997. Contribución a una Teoría de la Legislación. Madrid: Civitas.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Atienza, Manuel. 2005. “Reasoning and Legislation.” In The Theory and Practice of Legislation, ed. by Luc J. Wintgens. 297–317. Farnham: Ashgate.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Atkinson, Katie, and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2007. “Practical Reasoning as Presumptive Argumentation using Action Based Alternating Transition Systems.” Artificial Intelligence 1711: 855–874. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blair, J. Anthony. 1998. “Walton’s Argument Schemes from Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development”. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Ed. By Frans H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Rob Grootendorst and Charles Willard. Retrieved from: [URL]
Bohman, James, and William Rehg. 2017. “Jürgen Habermas.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. By Edward N. Zalta. Retrieved from [URL]
Bratman, Michael. 1987. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bulygin, Eugenio. 1991. “Teoría y Técnica de la Legislación.” In Análisis Lógico y Derecho [Logical Analysis and Law], ed. by Carlos E. Alchourrón, and Eugenio Bulygin. 409–415. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Feteris, Eveline. 2002. A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context. Argumentation 161 (31): 349–367. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Freeman, James B. 2013. “What types of arguments are there?”. OSSA Conference Archive. 501. [URL]
García Amado, J. Antonio. 1988. Teorías de la Tópica Jurídica. Madrid: Civitas.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
García Amado, J. Antonio. 2000. “Razón Práctica y Teoría de la Legislación [Practical Reason and Theory of Legislation].” Derechos y Libertades: Revista del Instituto Bartolomé de las Casas 91: 299–318.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Habermas, Jürgen. 2004. The Theory of Communicative Action. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. (Original work published in 1984).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, CA: MIT Press. (Original work published in 1992). ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Habermas, Jürgen. 2001. “On the Pragmatic, the Ethical, and the Moral Employment of Practical Reason.” In Justification and Application. Remarks on Discourse Ethics, 1–17. Cambridge, Massachusetts/ London, England: MIT Press. (First MIT edition, 1994).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, C. Lenhardt and S. W. Nicholsen (trans). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Originally published in 1983).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hastings, Arthur. 1963. A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Historia de la Ley Nº 20.634. 2012. Otorga Beneficios a los Deudores del Crédito con Garantía Estatal y Modifica la Ley N° 20.027.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Karpen, Ulrich. 1986. “Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Gesetzgebungslehre in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [The current status of legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany].” Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung 11: 5–32.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kelsen, Hans. 2007. General Theory of Law and State. New York: Clark. (Original work published in 1945).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marcilla Córdoba, Gema. 2013. “Razón Práctica, Creación de normas y Principio Democrático: Una Reflexión sobre los Ámbitos de la Argumentación Legislativa [Practical Reason, the Creation of Norms and the Democratic Principle].” Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez 471: 43–83.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 2000. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published in 1958).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pitkin, Hanna F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 countries.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 251: 1–65.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Toulmin, Stephen. 2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. (original work published in 1958). ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van der Weide, Tom L., Frank Dignum, John-Jules Ch. Meyer, Henry Prakken, and Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk. 2010. “Practical Reasoning Using Values: Giving Meaning to Values.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ed. by Peter McBurney et al.. 79–93. Budapest, Hungary. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Von Wright, Georg. 1972. On so-called practical inference. Acta Sociologica 151: 39–53. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walton, Douglas, and Erik C. W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts for Interpersonal Reasoning. NY: State University of New York Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walton, Douglas. 1996. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walton, Douglas. 1999. Appeal to Popular Opinion. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walton, Douglas. 2007. “Evaluating Practical Reasoning.” Synthese 1571: 197–240. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walton, Douglas. 2013. Value-based Practical Reasoning, From Knowledge Representation to Argumentation. In AI, Law and Policy Making: a Festschrift in Honour of Trevor Bench-Capon, ed. by K. Atkinson, H. Prakken and A. Wyner. 259–282. London: College Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walton, Douglas, and Chris Reed. 2002. “Argumentation Schemes and Defeasible Inferences.” Paper prsented at the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lyon.
Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wróblewski, Jerzy. 1979. “A Model of Rational Law-Making.” ARSP LXV (2): 187–201.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Corredor, Cristina
2023.
Agreeing on a Norm: What Sort of Speech Act?.
Topoi 42:2
► pp. 495 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.