Advertisement

On the Argumentum ad Absurdum in Statutory Interpretation: Its Uses and Normative Significance

  • Thomas Bustamante
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 102)

Abstract

The ad absurdum argument can be understood either as a strictly logical tool, which is equivalent to a proof by contradiction, or as a pragmatic argument about the desirability or undesirability of a given proposition. Yet, in legal reasoning lawyers tend to use it, at least in the vast majority of cases, only in the latter sense. The argumentum ad absurdum, as I will argue, can be classified as a special kind of pragmatic argument whose specific feature is its special argumentative strength in comparison with generic consequentialist argumentation. Once we are able to grant that premise, the paper intends to explain the most important rules of interpretation that may be used to determine the conditions under which the ad absurdum argument can be correctly deployed in legal reasoning.

Keywords

Legal System Legal Norm Legal Reasoning Legal Argumentation Legal Interpretation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Carlos Bernal Pulido, Matyas Bodig, Christian Dahlman, Eveline Feteris, Antonino Rotolo, Humberto Ávila and Henrike Jansen for the helpful comments and suggestions on a previous draft of this paper. Furthermore, he is indebted to the Foundation for the Development of the Research of the State of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG – Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais), for funding part of the research that led to this paper.

References

  1. Alexy, Robert. 1989. A theory of legal argumentation. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  2. Alexy, Robert. 1998. Law and correctness. Current Legal Problems 51: 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexy, Robert. 1999a. A defence of Radbruch’s formula. In Recrafting the rule of law: The limits of the legal order, ed. David Dyzenhaus, 15–39. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Alexy, Robert. 1999b. The special case thesis. Ratio Juris 12: 374–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexy, Robert. 2000. On the thesis of a necessary connection between law and morality: Bulygin’s critique. Ratio Juris 13: 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alexy, Robert. 2003. The argument from injustice: A reply to legal positivism (trans: Bonnie L. Paulson and Stanley L. Paulson). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bobbio, Norberto. 1971. Le bon législateur. In Le Raisonnement juridique – Actes du Congrés Mondial de Philosophie du Droit et de Philosophie Sociale, ed. Hubert Hubien. Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  8. Capone, Piera. 1997. Valore ed uso giurisprudenziale di absurdus/e. Studia et documenta historiae et iuris 63: 197–257.Google Scholar
  9. Daube, David. 1969. Reductio ad absurdum. In Roman law: Linguistic, social and philosophical aspects (The Gray Lectures 1966), 176–194. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dworkin, Ronald. 1978. Taking rights seriously, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dworkin, Ronald. 2002. Sovereign virtue: Theory and practice of equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ezquiaga, Francisco Javier. 1994. Argumentos interpretativos y postulado del legislador racional. Isonomía 1: 69–98.Google Scholar
  13. Feteris, Eveline. 2005. The rational reconstruction of argumentation referring to consequences and purposes in the application of legal rules: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 19: 459–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Golding, Martin. 2001. Legal reasoning. Toronto: Encore.Google Scholar
  15. Guastini, Riccardo. 2004. L’Interpretazione dei documenti normativi. Milan: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  16. Hart, H.L.A. 1977. Positivism and the separation of law and morals. In The philosophy of law, ed. Dworkin Ronald, 17–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Iguartua Salaverría, Juan. 1990. El postulado del legislador racional. Revista Vasca de Administración Pública 28: 113–125.Google Scholar
  18. Jansen, Henrike. 2007. Refuting a standpoint by appealing to its outcomes: Reductio ad absurdum vs Argument from Consequences. Informal Logic 27: 249–266.Google Scholar
  19. Kloosterhuis, Harm. 2007. Ad absurdum arguments in legal decisions. In Logic, argumentation and interpretation – Proceedings of the 22nd IVR World Congress Granada 2005, vol. V, ed. Josep Aguiló-Regla, 68–74. ARSP-Beihet 110.Google Scholar
  20. Klug, Ulrich. 1990. Lógica Jurídica (trans: Gardella, J.C.). Bogotá: Temis.Google Scholar
  21. Lazzaro, Giorgio. 1970. Argomenti dei giudici – Estratto dai lavori della ricerca sulla “Argomentazione Giuridica” patrocinata dal C.N.R. Turim: Emilio Bono.Google Scholar
  22. La Torre, Massimo, Enrico Pattaro, and Michele Taruffo. 1991. Statutory interpretation in Italy. In Interpreting statutes – A comparative study, ed. Neil MacCormick and Robert Summers, 213–256. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  23. Long, George. 1870. Commissaria lex. In Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities, ed. Sir. William Smith, 340. Boston: C. Little and J. Brown. There is a scanned online edition at http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/index.html. Consulted on 28 July 2011.
  24. MacCormick, Neil. 1983. On legal decisions and their consequences: From Dewey to Dworkin. New York University Law Review 58: 239–258.Google Scholar
  25. MacCormick, Neil. 2005. Rhetoric and the rule of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacCormick, Neil, and Robert Summers. 1991. Interpretation and justification. In Interpreting statutes – A comparative study, ed. Neil MacCormick and Robert Summers, 511–544. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  27. Maximiliano, Carlos. 1992. Hermenêutica e Aplicação do Direito, 12th ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense.Google Scholar
  28. Nino, Carlos Santiago. 1989. El modelo dogmático del legislador racional. In Consideraciones sobre la dogmática jurídica (con referencia particular a la dogmática penal), ed. Carlos Santiago Nino, 85–110. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico.Google Scholar
  29. Nowak, Leszek. 1969. De la rationalité du législateur comme élément de l’interprétation juridique. In Études de Logique Juridique, vol. III, ed. Chaïm Perelman, 65–86. Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  30. Nowak, Leszek. 1987. A concept of rational legislator. In Polish contributions to the theory and philosophy of law, ed. Zygmunt Ziembinski, 137–145. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  31. Paulson, Stanley L. 2006. On the background and significance of Gustav Radbruch’s post-war papers. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Perelman, Chaïm. 1978. Le raisonnable et le déraisonnable en droit. Archives de Philosophie du Droit 23: 35–42.Google Scholar
  33. Radbruch, Gustav. 2006. Statutory lawlessness and supra-statutory law (trans: Paulson, Stanley L. and Paulson, Bonnie L.). Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 1–11.Google Scholar
  34. Raz, Joseph. 2009. The authority of law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Reggi, Roberto. 1974. L’argomentazione per assurdo e Celso Figlio. In Studi in onore di Giuseppe Grosso, 145–172. Turim: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
  36. Rescher, Nicholas. 2005. Reductio ad absurdum. In The internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Available at http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio. Accessed on 28 July 2011.
  37. Rotolo, Antonino, and Corrado Roversi. 2009. Norm enactment and performative contradictions. Ratio Juris 22: 455–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ryle, Gilbert. 1945. Philosophical arguments. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  39. Searle, John R., and Daniel Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Slapper, Gary, and David Kelly. 2006. The English legal system. Oxon: Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar
  41. Tarello, Giovanni. 1980. L’Interpretazione della Legge. Milan: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  42. Tomassi, Paul. 1999. Logic, 8th ed. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wacke, Andreas. 2008. La consideración de las consecuencias de las decisiones jurídicas mediante deductio ad absurdum (en Derecho romano y en derecho moderno). Seminarios Complutenses de Derecho Romano 20–21: 451–480.Google Scholar
  44. Wróblewski, Jerzy. 1974. Legal syllogism and rationality of judicial decisions. Rechtstheorie 5: 33–46.Google Scholar
  45. Ziembinski, Zygmunt. 1978. La notion de rationalité du législateur. Archives de Philosophie du Droit 23: 175–187.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Legal Theory and Labour Law (DIT)Federal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options