Abstract

Compares formalism and instrumentalism and evaluates their general claims. “Part of what is meant by formalism is this: The law provides sufficient basis for deciding any case that arises. There are no “gaps” within the law, and there is but one sound legal decision for each case.” The formalist also holds that law is traceable to an authoritative source. “…sound legal decisions can be justified as the conclusions of valid deductive syllogisms. Because law is believed to be complete and univocal, all cases that arise can in principle be decided in this way. This is the formalistic model for legal justifications.” Moderate instrumentalism also accepts the notion that the law has sources and that past political events can determine what the law is for the future. However, they also maintain that the law has gaps. “Moderate instrumentalists and positivists alike embrace a source-based conception of the law as well as a formalistic model for legal justification; partly because of this combination, they reject the formalistic notion that law is complete and univocal. Instrumentalists, like positivists, emphasize that because the interpretation of authoritative legal texts and their application to cases are often controversial, reasonable arguments are often possible on both sides of a legal issue. Since there are no hard and fast rules for adjudicating such disputes, positivists conclude that law in such cases is indeterminate – not yet fully formed, needing judicial legislation. Instrumentalists most likely have a similar view of the law. They assume that law is determinate on an issue at a given time only if its identification and application are, roughly speaking, mechanical.” [Must keep in mind the distinction between determinate and conclusive.] “The instrumentalists make the decisive assumption that law is not determinate if it is controversial, for law is thought to be gappy and indeterminate only when reasonable legal arguments are possible on both sides of a legal question…This reasoning exposes a more fundamental assumption of formalism, instrumentalism, and positivism: Nondeductive reasoning is incapable of adequately establishing any conclusion.” This, though, is a radical thesis given that all scientific hypotheses are unproven deductively. [But it might be a claim restricted to legal reasoning. Moreover, it seems legitimate to wonder whether legal reasoning is really comparable to offering scientific hypotheses.] We should, however, reject the mechanistic model of legal and judicial reasoning that assumes a given major premise captured in authoritative legal texts that deductively produces conclusions in a situation to which a law applies. Take a law that requires some activity to be “economically efficient” but fails to specify economic efficiency. The text assumes that there is such a thing as economic efficiency, that some activities are so efficient and others not, that some judgments about economic efficiency are true and others false, and that the criteria of efficiency are determinable in principle. “[I]f there really are reasons for preferring one conception of economic efficiency to others in a given context, the assumption of the law in question would be true; if the court correctly identifies and applies that conception, it is simply carrying out its legal mandate. It would be faithful to the text, but it would not be limited to the four corners of the text and its literal implications.” Thus, a judge may employ non-mechanical reasoning in arriving at the meaning of legal requirements such as economic efficiency. Moral reasons are constitutive of the law. A judge must, in deciding the appropriate conc ption of economic efficiency, offer reasons for preferring that conception in the given context.