back to ideas for this text


Single Idea 6574

[from 'Walking the Tightrope of Reason' by Robert Fogelin, in 2. Reason / E. Argument / 3. Analogy ]

Full Idea

There is almost universal agreement that legal reasoning is fundamentally analogical, not deductive, in character.

Clarification

'Analogical' reasoning centres on comparison of examples

Gist of Idea

Legal reasoning is analogical, not deductive

Source

Robert Fogelin (Walking the Tightrope of Reason [2003], Ch.2)

Book Reference

Fogelin,Robert: 'Walking the Tightrope of Reason' [OUP 2004], p.63


A Reaction

This raises the question of whether analogy can be considered as 'reasoning' in itself. How do you compare the examples? Could you compare two examples if you lacked language, or rules, or a scale of values?