Skip to main content

Why Are We Bound by Evidence? On The Normative Stance of Legal Proof

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Theory of Legal Evidence - Evidence in Legal Theory

Part of the book series: Law and Philosophy Library ((LAPS,volume 138))

  • 347 Accesses

Abstract

The article aims at identifying the relationship between legal and epistemic normativity that determines the normative nature of legal evidence. For this task, the categorial tools developed on the grounds of contemporary metaethics are being applied, exposing the polysemic nature of the notion of normativity. It leads to the conclusion that legal normativity functions as metanormativity for epistemic normativity, as in the legal practice, evidence attains its epistemic significance within the course of the inferential interactions between participants of the ‘legal game’. Therefore if epistemic correctness is seen as a subset of legal correctness, at least within the legal evidence-finding process, different aims of both practices could reconcile. In this account epistemic normativity participates in forming the assertibility conditions for legal practice. Legal normativity, understood in terms of the mutual accountability of commitments of the participants of legal practice, gains objectivity in relation to its aim of arriving at a resolution based on factual findings. This objectivity, due to the history of past ascriptions and commitments, is able to give rise to the propositional content of evidence and thus it exceeds formal account of evidence based on coherence to legal standards only.

The paper was prepared within the framework of a research project funded by the National Science Centre (Narodowe Centrum Nauki) (PRELUDIUM 17 2019/33/N/HS5/01418).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Plunkett et al. (2019), p. xi.

  2. 2.

    Postema (1982), p. 165.

  3. 3.

    Marmor (2006).

  4. 4.

    With an example of article 7 of the Polish Code of Administrative Procedure (Journal of Laws 1960 No. 30, item 168), called the “Principle of Objective Truth”, that states: ‘Public administration bodies shall uphold the rule of law during proceedings and shall take all necessary steps to clarify the facts of a case and to resolve it, having regard to the public interest and the legitimate interests of members of the public’.

  5. 5.

    Nolfi (2015).

  6. 6.

    I am aware of the fact that normativism about belief is not an uncontroversial view. For critical examination see Glüer and Wikforss (2018). However, for the purposes of this paper, I decide not to advocate this view, but consider consequences of adopting normativists outlook on belief for the relationship between normativity of law (which is controversial itself, of course) and the normativity of belief, assuming there is one.

  7. 7.

    Côté-Bouchard (2016), p. 3183. I am aware of the debatable character of epistemic normativity, especially followed by a strategy of epistemic constitutivism. I decide to make it a point of departure for a discussion on the topic of the interrelation of both types of normativity, with the assumption that there are such. For a discussion of epistemic constitutivism see Côté-Bouchard (2016), for strategies of grounding epistemic normativity see Grimm (2009). However, as Côté-Bouchard claims, his criticism of epistemic constitutivism leaves open the possibility of deriving the content of epistemic norms from the constitutive aim of belief. I consider the topic of how the content of these norms are being determined as central for the present task.

  8. 8.

    E.g. Searle (1983).

  9. 9.

    Kelly (2003), p. 612.

  10. 10.

    I think it is not necessarily the case that the argument that is about to follow has to rest on the assumption that normativity of epistemic reason derives from epistemic rationality. An instrumentalist view on epistemic normativity is also possibly understood as being guided by norms of instrumental rationality, such as taking the means to one’s (epistemic) ends, although I don’t want to develop it here; for a discussion see Kelly (2003, 2007).

  11. 11.

    Wedgewood (2002).

  12. 12.

    Wedgewood (2002), pp. 268, 272.

  13. 13.

    “Suppose that a certain concept ‘F’ is normative for a certain practice. Then it is a constitutive feature of the concept ‘F’ that if one engages in this practice, and makes judgments about which moves within the practice are F and which are not, one is thereby committed to regulating one’s moves within the practice by those judgments” (after Wedgewood 2002, p. 268).

  14. 14.

    Wedgewood (2002), p. 269.

  15. 15.

    Kelly (2007), p. 468 (in the footnote).

  16. 16.

    Plunkett and Shapiro (2017).

  17. 17.

    McPherson (2011).

  18. 18.

    Joyce (2011).

  19. 19.

    Copp (2007).

  20. 20.

    Joyce (2011).

  21. 21.

    Broome (2013).

  22. 22.

    Copp (2007); after Finlay (2019), p. 205.

  23. 23.

    Parfit (2011).

  24. 24.

    Korsgaard (1996), pp. 7–48.

  25. 25.

    Lindeman (2019), p. 88.

  26. 26.

    For literature, see Côté-Bouchard (2016).

  27. 27.

    Côté-Bouchard (2016).

  28. 28.

    E.g. Velleman (2000).

  29. 29.

    Shapiro (2011), p. 213.

  30. 30.

    Plunkett (2013), p. 568.

  31. 31.

    Lindeman (2019), p. 88.

  32. 32.

    Depending on the concept of reasons that is being adopted. Some grant reason-giving character only to robust normativity, as Parfit (2011) who discerns between reason-giving and rule-implying normativity. Côté-Bouchard (2016) suggests a descriptive reading of ‘reasons’ that are norm-relative.

  33. 33.

    Côté-Bouchard (2016), p. 3183.

  34. 34.

    Rouse (2016).

  35. 35.

    Brandom (2008).

  36. 36.

    Dybowski (2017), p. 25.

  37. 37.

    Brandom (2008), p. 177.

  38. 38.

    Brandom (2008), p. 178.

  39. 39.

    Lewis (2018), p. 9.

  40. 40.

    Lewis (2018), p. 9.

  41. 41.

    E.g. Canale and Tuzet (2007), pp. 32–44.

  42. 42.

    E.g. Dybowski (2017, 2018).

  43. 43.

    Dybowski (2017), p. 32.

  44. 44.

    Dybowski (2017).

  45. 45.

    Finlay (2019).

  46. 46.

    See: Enoch (2019).

  47. 47.

    Plunkett and Shapiro (2017), p. xi.

  48. 48.

    Finlay (2019), p. 192.

  49. 49.

    Haack (2004).

  50. 50.

    Haack (2004), p. 48.

  51. 51.

    Kelly (2003), p. 612.

  52. 52.

    Haack (2004), p. 13.

  53. 53.

    Dummett (1959).

  54. 54.

    Rorty (1979).

  55. 55.

    Haack (2004), p. 8.

  56. 56.

    Haack (2004), p. 50.

  57. 57.

    Wedgewood (2002), p. 269.

  58. 58.

    Feldman (2000), pp. 14–15.

  59. 59.

    Harman (2004), p. 48.

  60. 60.

    Harman (2004), p. 48.

References

  • Brandom R (2008) Between saying and doing: towards an analytic pragmatism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Broome J (2013) Rationality through reasoning. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Canale D, Tuzet G (2007) On legal inferentialism. Towards a pragmatics of semantic content in legal adjudication? Ratio Juris 20(1):32–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copp D (2007) Morality in a natural world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Côté-Bouchard C (2016) Can the aim of belief ground epistemic normativity? Philos Stud 173(12):3181–3198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dummett M (1959) Truth. Proc Aristotelian Soc 59(1):141–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dybowski M (2017) Legal theory and challenges of analytical pragmatism. Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej - Journal of the Polish Section of IVR 2017(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dybowski M (2018) Articulating Ratio Legis and practical reasoning. In: Ratio Legis - Philosophical and theoretical perspectives. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Enoch D (2019) Is general jurisprudence interesting? In: Plunkett D, Shapiro S, Toh K (eds) Dimensions of normativity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman R (2000) The ethics of belief. Philos Phenomenol Res LX:667–695

    Google Scholar 

  • Finlay S (2019) Defining normativity. In: Plunkett D, Shapiro S, Toh K (eds) Dimensions of normativity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Glüer K, Wikforss Å (2018) Reasons for belief and normativity. In: Star D (ed) The Oxford handbook of reasons and normativity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm SR (2009) Epistemic normativity. In: Haddock A, Millar A, Pritchard D (eds) Epistemic value. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Haack S (2004) Epistemology legalized: or, truth, justice, and the American way. Am J Jurisprud 49(1):43–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harman G (2004) Practical aspects of theoretical reasoning. In: Mele AR, Rawling P (eds) The Oxford handbook of rationality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 45–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce R (2011) The myth of morality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly T (2003) Epistemic rationality as instrumental rationality: a critique. Philos Phenomenol Res LXVI(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly T (2007) Evidence and normativity: reply to Leite. Philos Phenomenol Res LXXV(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard C (1996) The sources of normativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis J (2018) Hegel and the ethics of Brandom’s metaphysics. Eur J Pragmatism Am Philos X-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindeman K (2019) Legal metanormativity: lessons for and from constitutivist accounts in the philosophy of law. In: Plunkett D, Shapiro S, Toh K (eds) Dimensions of normativity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Marmor A (2006) How law is like chess. Leg Theory 12(4):347–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson T (2011) Against quietist normative realism. Philos Stud 154(2):223–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolfi K (2015) How to be a normativist about the nature of belief. Pac Philos Q 96(2):181–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parfit D (2011) On what matters, vol 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Plunkett D (2013) Legal positivism and the moral aim thesis. Oxf J Leg Stud 33(3):563–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plunkett D, Shapiro S (2017) Law, morality and everything else: general jurisprudence as a branch of meta-normative inquiry. Ethics 127(4)

    Google Scholar 

  • Plunkett D, Shapiro S, Toh K (2019) Introduction. In: Plunkett D, Shapiro S, Toh K (eds) Dimensions of normativity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Polish Code of Administrative Procedure (Journal of Laws 1960 No. 30, item 168)

    Google Scholar 

  • Postema GJ (1982) Coordination and convention at the foundations of law. J Leg Stud 11(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty R (1979) Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse J (2016) Practice theory. In: Turner S, Risjord M (eds) Handbook of the philosophy of science, vol 15: Philosophy of anthropology and sociology. Elsevier (North Holland Publishing Co.), Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle JR (1983) Intentionality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro S (2011) Legality. Harvard University Press, Harvard

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Velleman JD (2000) On the aim of belief. In: The possibility of practical reason. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 244–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedgewood R (2002) The aim of belief. Philos Perspect 36(s16):267–297

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Weronika Dziȩgielewska .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dziȩgielewska, W. (2021). Why Are We Bound by Evidence? On The Normative Stance of Legal Proof. In: Klappstein, V., Dybowski, M. (eds) Theory of Legal Evidence - Evidence in Legal Theory. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 138. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83841-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83841-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-83840-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-83841-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics