Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 423–449

Baseballs and arguments from fairness


DOI: 10.1007/s10506-013-9151-1

Cite this article as:
Walton, D. Artif Intell Law (2014) 22: 423. doi:10.1007/s10506-013-9151-1


This paper applies two argumentation schemes, argument from fairness and argument from lack of knowledge (along with other schemes of lesser prominence) to model the reasoning given by Judge McCarthy supporting his decision to divide the proceeds of a homerun baseball in the case of Popov v. Hayashi. Several versions of both schemes are explained and discussed, and then applied to the argumentation given by Judge McCarthy as the basis of the reasoning used to arrive at his decision. The scheme for argument from fairness is shown to be based on a special principle in Perelman’s theory of justice.


Justice Argument maps Argumentation schemes 

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR)University of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations