Seminarhandout

Dr.VeronicaRodriguezBlanco

Howtowriteandthinkasalegalphilosopher?

Overview

Anessayinjurisprudencediscussesideasthatshouldbesupportedbyargumentation.
Therearelogicalandcontentcriteriathatdistinguishagoodessayfromanotsogood
essay.Wewilldiscussthesecriteriatogetherwithsomeadviceonhowtowriteanessay
injurisprudence.

Aimsofanessayinjurisprudence

Theideasofyouressayshouldbesupportedbyarguments.Youhavetooffer
reasonstobelievethem.
Anessayinjurisprudencemighthaveavarietyofaims:

1. Criticiseandargumentorshowthattheargumentsforthethesisarenotgood.
2. Defendtheargumentorthesisagainstsomeoneelsescriticism.
3. Offerreasonstobelievethethesis.
4. Contrastthestrengthsandweaknessesoftwoopposingviewsaboutthethesis.
5. Giveexampleswhichhelpexplainthethesis.
6. Discusswhatconsequencesthethesiswouldhave,ifitweretrue.
7. Revisethethesisinthelightofsomeobjection.

Agoodessayismodestandmakestwoorthreepoints,butthepointsarediscuss
clearlyandtheessayoffersgoodreasonsinsupportofit.
Donotbeoverambitiousandattempttocovertoomuchmaterial.Theresultofthisis
anessayinadequatedlydefendedandpoorlyexplainedclaims.

Originality

Theaimoftheexerciseistoshowthatyouunderstandthematerialandareableto

1
thinkcriticallyaboutit.Itisnotexpectedthatyouwillhaveyourownphilosophical
theory.However,theessayshouldcontaincriticalresponsestotheideasexamined.

Writingtheessay

Atthefirststage,youshouldreadallthematerialanddiscussyourideaswith
yourpeersorfriends.Raiseyourowncriticismtotheviewsthatyouaimtoexamine
andanticipatepossibleobjectionstoyourarguments.Atthesecondstage,writean
outline.Thinkabouttheadequatestructureforyouressay.Outlineyourarguments.
Youwouldneedtoinvestconsiderabletimeonthistask.Itisimpossibletowritea
goodessaytwoorthreenightsbefore.Agoodessayneedsreflection.Atthethird
stage,writeadraft.Aclearintroductionisessential.Itwillexplainboththeaimsand
core arguments of the essay. Your should also make the structure of the essay
obvioustothereader.
Usesignpostssuchas:

*WehavejustseenhowXsaysthatP.
*Iwillraisethreeobjectionstothisview.First.
*Iwillarguefortheviewthat.
*TherearethreereasonstobelieveQ.First.

Tips:

*Donotrelyontextbooks.Analysedirectlythetextsoftheauthors.
*Donotforgettoproofread.
*Writeandrewriteyouressayseveraltimes.
*Useplentyofexamplestoillustrateyourpoint.
*Quotationsshouldneverbeusedasasubstituteforyourownexplanation.Ifyou
needtoquote,youstillneedtoexplainwhatthequotationsaysinyourownwords.
*Usecorrectlythesystemofreferences.
Askyourselfthefollowingquestions:
Arethecoreargumentswellexplained?
Isthestructureoftheessayadequate?
Is my explanation of the legal theorists view accurate? Make sure that you
understandexactlywhatthepositionyouarecriticisingsays.Jurisprudencedemands
ahighlevelofprecision.Itisnotsufficienttohaveageneralideaofthearguments
raisedbylegaltheorists.

PartII:Whatistothinkcritically?

2
 Criticalthinkingisthecarefulanddeliberatedeterminationofwhethertoaccept,

reject,orsuspendjudgementaboutaclaim.Criticalthinkinginvolvesanumberofskills:

*abilitytolistenandreadcarefully
*abilitytolookforandfindhiddenassumptions
*abilitytoevaluatearguments
*abilitytotracethedifferentconsequencesandimplicitimplicationsofaclaim

Claims arestatements thatareeither trueorfalseandthey aresupportedby

arguments.

Criticalthinkingrequires:
theidentificationofthearguments
thereconstructionofthearguments
theevaluationofthearguments

Anargumentisconstitutedbypremisesandconclusions.Premisescanbeeitherexplicit
orimplicit.

Exercise1:

You are asked to read carefully the following arguments and to separate the
premisesandtheconclusions.Theargumentsexplainaview(thestandardviewonthe
conventionalitythesis)andadvanceacriticismofit.

It is often said, mistakenly, that because the rule of recognition is a social or

conventionalrule,itscontentisconstitutedbythebehaviourofofficials;andthatbecause
itscapacitytoimposedutiesdependsonitsbeingpractice,thescopeoftheobligationsit
imposesontheofficialsiscoextensivewiththeiractualbehaviour.Thestandardview,
implicit in almost all writing on the subject, is that because the rule depends on
convergentbehaviourforitsexistenceasaregulativerule,itscontentisdeterminedfully
by that behaviour. Those who object to characterising the rule of recognition as a
conventional rule have exploited this standard view in order to undermine the
conventionalitythesis.Hereistheworry.Ifthecontentoftheruleisdeterminedbythe
convergentbehaviour,itseemstofollowthatwhateverdescriptioncapturestherangeof
thatconvergencejustistheruleofrecognition.Thiswouldbeatbestacrampedand
unilluminatingformofexplanation.Moreover,somehavethoughtthatifthebehaviour
determinedthecontentofarule,thenthescopeofobligationdeterminedbytheruleof

3
recognitionmustbecoextensivewiththeactualconvergenceofbehaviourofofficials.
But in that case, the rule could impose no duties beyond the scope of convergent
behaviour,andthusnobehaviourcouldfailtosatisfytheruleofrecognition.Hereitis
difficulttoseeinwhatsensewewouldbetalkingaboutaruleatall.Whiletheobjection
seemsquitepowerful,itisabletogetoffthegroundonlybypresupposingamistaken
picture of the relationship between the content of the rule of recognition and the
convergentbehaviour.Themistakeistosupposethatthesemanticcontentoftheruleof
recognitionisdeterminedbytherangeoftheconvergentbehaviour.Tomakethismistake
isnottotakeseriouslytheclaimthatthepracticeofofficialsisapracticeoffollowinga
rule. For there must be always a gap between the mere description of ruleguided
behaviourandthecontentoftherulethatguidesit.(JulesColeman, Thepracticeof
Principle,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2001).

Claim1:Explanationofthestandardviewontheconventionalitythesis

Reconstructingtheargument

Subargument1:

Premise1:Practicesaresocialorconventional
Premise2:Theruleofrecognitioncanimposedutiesifandonlyifitispracticed.
Conclusion1:Theruleofrecognitionisasocialorconventionalrule.

Subargument2:

Premise3:Asocialorconventionalrulepresupposesaconvergentbehaviour
Premise4:Theruleofrecognitionisasocialrule(fromconclusion1)
Conclusion 2 (from premises 3 and 4): The rule of recognition presupposes a
convergentbehaviour.

Subargument3:

Premise5:Theruleofrecognitiondeterminesthescopeoftheduties.
Premise6:Dutiesaredeterminedbyasocialorconventionalrule
Conclusion3(frompremises3,5and6):Thescopeofthedutiesimposedbytherule
ofrecognitionaredeterminedbyconvergentbehaviour.

4
Subargument4:

Premise7:Aconvergentbehaviourcanbedescribedinmanyways
Conclusion2asapremise:theruleofrecognitionpresupposesconvergentbehaviour
Conclusion3:Theruleofrecognitioncanbedescribedinmanyways.

Subargument5:

Premise8:Rulesguideouractions
Premise9:Ifarulecanbedescribedinmanyways,itisunlikelythatitcanguideus.
Conclusion3asapremise:Theruleofrecognitioncanbedescribedinmanyways.
Conclusion 4(from premises 8,9and conclusion 3): It is unlikely that the rule of
recognitioncanguideus.

Subargument6:

Premise10:Socialorconventionalrulesguideus
Conclusion4asapremise:Itisunlikelythattheruleofrecognitioncanguideus.
Conclusion5:Theruleofrecognitionisnotasocialorconventionalrule.

Counterclaim:Criticismofthestandardviewontheconventionalitythesisand
vindicationoftheconventionalitythesisonthebasisofanalternativeinterpretation

Thecounterclaimacceptspremises1,2andconclusion1,butrejectspremise3.It
addsthefollowingpremisesandconclusions:

Premise11:Thepracticeoftheruleofrecognitionpresupposesthepracticeofrule
following.
Premise12:Thepracticeofrulefollowingcannotbeexplainedbymeredescriptions.
Conclusion6:Theruleofrecognitioncannotbeexplainedbymeredescriptions

5
Implicationsofconclusion6:Itshowsthatconclusion3isfalseandthereforetheother
argumentsareunsupported.

Assessmentofthearguments:

Youhavealreadyidentifiedthepremisesandtheconclusionsofthearguments.Youneed
nowtoevaluatethearguments.Considerthefollowingquestions:

Arethereambiguitiesineitherthepremisesortheconclusions?
Arethetermsofboththepremisesandtheconclusionsvague?
Canyouthinkaboutcounterargumentsforboththeclaimandthecounterclaim?
Canyouthinkaboutcounterexamples?
Doeithertheconclusionsorpremisescontradictourbackgroundknowledgeon
thetopic?
Dotheconclusionsfollowfromthepremises?
Arethepremisesrelevanttoestablishthetruthoftheconclusions?
Canyouidentifyafallacyintheargumentation?
*Canyouthinkaboutlegalexamplesthatarerelevanttoeithersupportorrejectthe
arguments?

PartIII:LogicalCriteria

Theessayshouldbothshowconsistencyandavoidfallacies.Afallacyisatypeof
anincorrectargument.Afallaciousargumentseemscorrect,butprovesafter
examinationnottobeso.Wewilldiscussthemostfrequentfallaciesinargumentation.

I.Appealtoauthority:

Thepropositionisclaimedtobetrueonthebasisofitsassertionbyanauthority.

II.Thefallacyofaccident:

Itconsistsinapplyingageneralruletoaparticularcasewhoseaccidental
circumstancesrendertheruleinapplicable.Forexample:
Iamsurethattheirambassadorwillbereasonableaboutthematter.Afterall,manisa
rationalman.

III.Thefallacyofhastygeneralisation(converseaccident):

6
 Ifoneconsidersonlyexceptionalcasesandhastilygeneralisestoarulethat
fitsthemalone,thefallacycommittedisthatofconverseaccident.
Example:Duringthewarenemyespionageringswereexposedbytappingthetelephone
wiresofsuspects.Thereforetheauthoritiesshouldhavethetelephonewiresofall
suspiciouspersonstapped.

IV.Thefallacyadpopulum:

Itaimstodirectanemotionalappealtopeopletowintheirassenttoa
conclusionunsupportedbyvalidarguments.
Example:TheGoldenRuleisbasictoeverysystemofethicseverdevised,andeveryone
acceptsitinsomeformorother.Itis,therefore,anundeniablysoundmoralprinciple

V.Thefallacyoffalsecause:

Ithastwoalternatives.First,itmeanstomistakewhatisnotthecauseofagiven
effectforitsrealcause.
Examples:NobreathofscandalhasevertouchedtheSenator.Therefore,hemustbe
incorruptiblyhonest.

Second,thefalseinferencethatoneeventisthecauseofanotherfromthebarefactthat
thefirstoccursearlierthanthesecond.

VI.Beggingthequestion:

Inattemptingtoestablishthetruthofaproposition,oneassumesasapremisefor
theargumenttheveryconclusiononeintendstoprove.
Example:

Ourteamistheoutstandingteamintheconference,becauseithasthebestplayersand
thebestcoach.Weknowithasthebestplayersandthebestcoachbecauseitwillwinthe
conferencetitle.Anditwillwintheconferencetitlebecauseitdeservestowinthe
conferencetitle.Ofcourseitdeservestowintheconferencetitle,foritistheoutstanding
teamintheconference.
Thereisnoclearrecipetoavoidfallacies.Itrequiresconstantvigilanceandawarenessof
themanywaysthatirrelevantargumentscanintrude.

Someusefulbibliography:

Bowell, Tracy and Gary Kemp, Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide (London:

7
Routledge,2002).
Creel, R, Thinking Philosophically: An Introduction to Critical Reflection and
RationalDialogue(Oxford:Blackwell,2001).
Thomson,Anne,Critical Reasoning:aPractical Introduction (London:Routledge,
2001).