Professional Documents
Culture Documents
finding justice
Principle:
What is true of the
universal is true of the particular.
Inductive Reasoning
anthitesis of deductive
specific conclusions are generalized to
general conclusions
multiple particular to general
Principle: The world is sufficiently regular
to permit the discovery of general rules.
B. Civil Law Tradition vs. Common Law Tradition
Civil Law Tradition
the law is almost entirely codified, highly
systemized and structured and that it relies
on broad, general principles, without
necessarily setting out the details.
basis of private law; quantified
appear for the most part in reported usually
judgments rendered by higher courts.
Common Law Tradition
known for its jurisprudence, for a system of
legal precepts that emerge from court
decisions
Differences
Sources of
Law
Principle of
precedent &
stare decisis
Method of legal
thinking &
CIVIL LAW
Codified
Bound to codes
& reason
COMMON LAW
Judge-made
case law
Subject to these
two principles
Develop
abstract
Dominated on
focusing on
Function of
Doctrine
Appointment of
Judges
Procedural
each case
Find
differences&
similarities in
decided cases
to extract
specific rules
from decided
cases
Selected &
appointed only
from among
experienced
practicing
lawyers
Adversarial
Virtue Ethics
focuses on how to live
how to develop a good character
Divine Command Theory
different divine authorities
2. Aesthetic Reasoning
judgments about beauty and art
rely on conceptual frameworks that integrate
fact and value
Principles:
a. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they have a
meaning or teach something true.
identifies value in art that fulfills a cultural or
social function by teaching that non-art cannot
provide.
e.g. More happens in one episode of
teleserye than what happens to me in one
year.
b. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they express
the values of the culture they arise in, or the artists
who make them.
value in art that fulfills cultural or social function.
e.g. Homers Iliad makes a warriors
value vivid.
c. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they can lead
to social change.
social change is an improvement
e.g. Noli Me Tangere & El Filibusterismo
d. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they give their
audience pleasure.
contributes to our happiness, connecting value
with a thjng s ability to produce a type of
psychological experience, aesthetic hedonism.
e.g. Fifty Shades of Grey
e. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they give their
audience certain emotions.
emotions are not daily occurrences
e.g. The Lincoln Memorial is awesome.
f. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they produce a
special nonemotional experience that comes only
from art, such as autonomy, or, the willing
suspension of disbelief.
comes down to the production of a certain
subjective state
e.g. Ansel Adams photo of Yosemite
Valley are breathtaking.
g. Objects are aesthetically valuable if they possess
a special aesthetic(formal) property, such as beauty,
unity, or organization.
Socratic Method
dialectical method of teaching
Logical Thought
same as reflective thinking
works without emotion
works by comparison, yes or no, either/ or.
Seeks conclusion, decision between two
opposing choices
Process that requires some attention to be
directed to each step of the process
Reflective Thinking
refers to processes of analyzing and making
judgments about what has happened
Proposition
refers to the content or meaning of a
meaningful declarative sentence
includes having the quality or property of
being either true or false
Term
Deductive Reasoning
Two propositions which imply the third
proposition, the conclusion, are called
premises. The broad proposition that forms
the starting point of deduction is called the
major premise; the second proposition is
called the minor premise. The major premise
represents the all; the minor premise,
something or someone included in the all.
B.
Inductive Reasoning
Deductive Reasoning
The connection between
a
given
piece
of
information and another
piece of information
concluded from it is a
necessary connection.
A deductive argument is
one whose conclusion is
claimed to follow from
its
premises
with
absolute necessity. If
the premises are valid,
the conclusion is valid. If
the conclusion is valid,
the premises are valid.
Inference
conclusion inferred from the data
Implication
the data implies the conclusion
Conclusion
* it offers a new insight that is known to be true
based on the premises.
B. Conclusion Testing
a conclusion can be true only when
(1) the other proposition are true
(2) these propositions imply the conclusion
not all means of persuasion are based on
reflective thinking or formal logic
some forms of persuasion are not qualify i.e.
rhetoric
In a valid deductive
argument,
if
the
premises are true, the
conclusion must be true.
Moves by inference
from
the
general
(universal) ultimately to
the particular.
Inductive Reasoning
The connection between
given pieces of information
and another piece inferred
from them is not a logically
necessary connection.
An inductive argument is
one whose conclusion is
claimed to follow from its
premises
only
with
probability
and
not
absolute necessity. All that
is represented is that the
conclusion
is
more
probable than not. Its
premises do not provide
conclusive support for the
conclusion; they provide
only some support for it.
In
a
valid
inductive
argument, the conclusion
is not necessarily an
absolute
truth;
by
induction, we reach a
conclusion that is only
more probably true than
not.
Moves from the particular
to the general (universal)
(induced generalization by
enumeration of instances),
or from the particular to
the particular (analogy).
SUBJECT
PREDICATE
D
D
U
U
U
D
U
D
Analogy
Formal Fallacies
Case: Suga, et al. v. Lacson, et al., G.R. No. L26055, 29 April 1968
Informal Fallacies
Fallacies of Distraction
Shift
attention
from
reasoned
argument to other things that are
irrelevant, irrational and often
emotional
a. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad
misericordiam)
Evades the pertinent issues and
makes a purely emotional
appeal
Not a fallacy when relevant to the
decision, e.g. equity cases
and
discretionary
sentencing;
however, if the question under
consideration is a factual issue, an
appeal to pity is irrelevant,
and
deflects attention away from the
facts.
b. Appeal to Prestige (Argumentum
ad verecundiam) or Appeal to
Inappropriate Authority
Appeal to authority or prestige of
parties having no legitimate claim to
authority in the matter at hand
Use of pedantic words and
phrases, references, quotations,
length, detail and specificity
e.g. Pacquiao said: support the
RH bill
Lawyers who use too much references,
Case:
Neill, J., dissenting, Cresap v. Pacific Inland
Navigation Co., 478 P.2d 223, 228 78 Wash.2d
563 (1970) when the support of the law is not
significant per se, its effect is only rhetorical.
c. Appeal to Ridicule (Argumentum
ad hominem)
Shifts an argument from the point
being discussed (ad rem) to
irrelevant personal characteristics of
an opponent, and makes the
opponent the issue
However, ad hominem may be
allowed in the use of evidence of
both bad character and bias for the
purpose of attacking a witness
credibility. Another proper use is in
receiving expert witness testimony.
See: Rules of Court Sec. 20 Rule 130 (Witnesses;
their qualifications)
Sec. 51 Rule 130 (Character evidence not
generally admissible; exceptions)
Genetic Fallacy
Claims that an idea, product, or person must
be untrustworthy because of its racial,
geographic, or ethnic origin
B. Linguistic Fallacies
1. Equivocation
Confuse several meanings of a word or
phrase in the context of an argument; allow
the meaning of a term to shift between the
premises of the argument and the conclusion
2. Amphibology
Ambiguity comes from the grammatical
structure; the double meaning lies not in the
word but in the syntax or grammatical
construction of a sentence
Arise in an argument where meaning is
muddled by slovenly syntax bad grammar,
poor punctuation, dangling participles,
misplaced modifiers
3. Composition
4. Division
Mistakenly argue that attributes of a whole
must also be present in each part of that
whole
5. Vicious Abstraction
Removal of a statement from its context,
thereby changing the meaning of an
argument
6. Argumentum ad nauseum
Unnecessarily long brief or a windbag oral
argument where the advocate seeks to
sustain his position by repetition piled upon
repetition rather than by succinct, effective
proof or logical development