Legal Philosophy and the Study of Legal Reasoning

In this short paper, I shall argue that legal philosophers ought to focus more than they have done so far on problems of reasoning. Not only is a field with many philosophically interesting questions consider, but it also, in my estimation, the which can contribute most both practice and study law. The law is, after all, an argumentative practice. Lawyers judges aim provide solutions concrete rarely try say anything general application. And although scholars take view things typically discuss types problems, they, too, tend prefer rather piecemeal approach problem-solving, usually abstain from defending theories or otherwise speaking terms. But even though reasoning interpretation are at center what practitioners do, there highly talented persons above-mentioned groups, neither nor reason same care precision as do. Perhaps important difference whereas intuitive way, emphasizing rules thumb, common sense, value workable problematic cases, philosophers, may also intuitively emphasize often make logical structure relevant argument explicit by formulating precisely possible conclusion premises, subjecting thus formulated close well substantive scrutiny, where such scrutiny involves paying attention content, structure, function any concepts. Against background, consider following three regarding especially worthy serious consideration. first question relevance theory reasons holism general. second how analyze (first-order) statements way does not undermine rationality third whether arguments inferences be understood deductive inductive inferences, both, if how.