Abstract
We discuss five kinds of representations of rationales and provide a formal account of how they can alter disputation. The formal model of disputation is derived from recent work in argument. The five kinds of rationales are compilation rationales, which can be represented without assuming domain-knowledge (such as utilities) beyond that normally required for argument. The principal thesis is that such rationales can be analyzed in a framework of argument not too different from what AI already has. The result is a formal understanding of rationales, a partial taxonomy, and a foundation for computer programs that represent and reason with rationales.
The five kinds of rationales are as follows: (c)ompression and (s)pecialization, which yield rules, and (d)isputation, which yields a decision. These are modeled as potentially changing the focus of the dispute. Then there are (f)it, a rationale for rules, and (r)esolution, a rationale for decisions. These cannot be modeled as simply; they force disputation to a meta-level, at least temporarily.
The paper first discusses each kind of rationale in the abstract. Then it produces a model of dispute in which the simpler rationales can be analyzed. Formal examples are given. The model is augmented to allow analysis of the more difficult rationales. Examples are again given. The discussion is not intended to be strictly mathematical; rather, it aims to use formal methods to illuminate and provide framework for future interpretation and implementation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alchourron, C. & E. Bulygin. 1971.Normative System. Springer-Verlag.
Alexy, R. 1989.A Theory of Legal Argumentation (translation), Oxford.
Ashley, K. 1989. DefiningSalience in Case-Based Arguments. In ProceedingsIJCAI.
Ashley, K. & Aleven, V. 1991. Toward an Intelligent Tutoring System for Teaching Law Students to Argue with Cases. In ProceedingsACM ICAIL.
Bayles, M. 1990.Procedural Justice. Kluwer.
Berman D. & C. Hafner. 1993. Representing Teleological Structure in Case-Based Legal Reasoning. In ProceedingsICAIL.
Branting, K. 1993. A Reduction-Graph Model of Ratio Decidendi. In ProceedingsICAIL.
Dworkin, R. 1985.A Matter of Principle. Harvard.
Gardner, A. 1987.An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. MIT Press.
Gordon, T. 1993.The Pleadings Game. Doctoral dissertation, University of Darmstadt.
Gottlieb, G. 1968.The Logic of Choice: An Investigation of the Concepts of Rule and Rationality. Allen-Unwin.
Hage, J., Span, G. & Lodder, A. 1992. ADialogical Model of Legal Reasoning. In ProceedingsJURIX.
Hart, H.L.A. 1951. The Ascription of Rights and Responsibilities. InLogic and Language. ed. A. Flew. Oxford.
Hart, H.L.A. 1961.Concept of Law. Oxford.
Loui, R. 1989. Analogical Reasoning, Defeasible Reasoning, and the Reference Class. In Proceedings,Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.
Loui, R. 1992. Process and Policy. Washington University Computer Science Technical Report 92-43.Computational Intelligence (to appear).
Loui, R., Norman, J., Merrill, A., Stiefvater, K. & Costello, A. 1993a. Computing specificity. Washington University Computer Science Technical Report 93-03.
Loui, R., Norman, J., Merrill, A., & Olson, J. 1993b. A Design for Reasoning with Policies, Precedents, and Rationales. In ProceedingsICAIL.
MacCormick, N. 1987. Why Cases Have Rationes, And What These Are? InPrecedent in Law, ed. L. Goldstein. Oxford.
Peczenik, A. 1989.On Law and Reason. Kluwer.
Pollock, J. 1992. How to Reason Defeasibly.Artificial Intelligence 57.
Prakken, H. 1993.Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Doctoral dissertation, Free University Amsterdam.
Quine, W. V. O. 1990. Personal communication.
Rescher, N. 1977.Dialectics, SUNY Buffalo.
Rissland, E. & K. Ashley. 1987. A Case-Based System for Trade Secrets Law. In ProceedingsACM ICAIL.
Rissland, E. & D. Skalak. 1989. Interpreting Statutory Predicates. In ProceedingsACM ICAIL.
Sartor, G. 1993a.Artificial Intelligence in Law. Tano.
Sartor, G. 1993b. A Simple Computational Model for Non-Monotonic and Adversarial Legal Reasoning. In Proceedings,ICAIL.
Schauer, F. 1991.Playing By the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision Making in Law and in Life. Oxford.
Simari, G. & Loui, R. 1992. A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation.Artificial Intelligence 53.
Skalak, D. & Rissland, E. 1991. Argument Moves in a Rule-Guided Domain. In ProceedingsACM ICAIL.
Soeteman, A. 1989.Logic in Law. Kluwer.
Toulmin, S. 1958.The Uses of Argument. Cambridge.
Vreeswijk, G. 1993.Studies in Defeasible Argumentation. Doctoral dissertation, Free University Amsterdam.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Loui, R.P., Norman, J. Rationales and argument moves. Artif Intell Law 3, 159–189 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872529
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872529