Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 9:3 (2020) ► pp.399–427

Deliberating over legislative ends

An inventory of goal-(de)legitimizing argument schemes

| University of Chile

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.

Keywords: practical rationality, instrumental rationality, discourse principle, legislative debates, argument scheme from consequences, argument scheme from values, argument scheme from model, argument 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
Published online: 17 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19010.ihn
References
Albert, Hans
1985 Treatise on Critical Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published in 1968) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atienza, Manuel
1997 Contribución a una Teoría de la Legislación. Madrid: Civitas.Google Scholar
2005 “Reasoning and Legislation.” In The Theory and Practice of Legislation, ed. by Luc J. Wintgens. 297–317. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Katie, and Trevor Bench-Capon
2007 “Practical Reasoning as Presumptive Argumentation using Action Based Alternating Transition Systems.” Artificial Intelligence 1711: 855–874. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
Habermas, Jürgen
2004 The Theory of Communicative Action. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. (Original work published in 1984).Google Scholar
1996 Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, CA: MIT Press. (Original work published in 1992) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
1990 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, C. Lenhardt and S. W. Nicholsen (trans). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Originally published in 1983).Google Scholar
Hastings, Arthur
1963 A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
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
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
Kelsen, Hans
2007 General Theory of Law and State. New York: Clark. (Original work published in 1945).Google Scholar
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
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
Pitkin, Hanna F.
1967 The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Toulmin, Stephen
2003) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. (original work published in 1958) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst
1992 Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Von Wright, Georg
1972 On so-called practical inference. Acta Sociologica 151: 39–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Walton, Douglas
1996 Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1999 Appeal to Popular Opinion. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
2007 “Evaluating Practical Reasoning.” Synthese 1571: 197–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Wróblewski, Jerzy
1979 “A Model of Rational Law-Making.” ARSP LXV (2): 187–201.Google Scholar