This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related

Contents
97 found
Order:
1 — 50 / 97
Material to categorize
  1. The Inference to the Best Legal Explanation.Claudio Michelon - 2019 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 39 (4):878-900.
    Courts use inferences to the best explanation in many contexts and for a variety of purposes. Yet our understanding of lawyers’ uses of this inferential form is insufficient. In this article, after briefly introducing this inferential form, I set out to: (i) explain the structure of such arguments by reference to an argument scheme; (ii) clarify the types of claims courts support by deploying such inferences while attempting to justify acting in accordance with explanatory principles (inferences to the best explanation—principles, (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. Precedent Slippery Slopes.Katharina Stevens - 2023 - In Timothy Endicott, Hafsteinn Dan Kristjánsson & Sebastian Lewis (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Precedent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    This chapter discusses slippery slope arguments that are used in the context of common-law precedent. The slippery slope argument is often treated as a fallacy. Nonetheless, using or answering slippery slope worries in legal decision-making is conspicuously common. And not only that: several authors have remarked that slippery slope arguments can often be valid, even strong, in the context of legal precedent. In this chapter, I investigate why this should be so. It is argued that there is a special type (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. Strong admissibility for abstract dialectical frameworks.Atefeh Keshavarzi Zafarghandi, Rineke Verbrugge & Bart Verheij - 2022 - Argument and Computation 13 (3):249-289.
    dialectical frameworks have been introduced as a formalism for modeling argumentation allowing general logical satisfaction conditions and the relevant argument evaluation. Different criteria used to settle the acceptance of arguments are called semantics. Semantics of ADFs have so far mainly been defined based on the concept of admissibility. However, the notion of strongly admissible semantics studied for abstract argumentation frameworks has not yet been introduced for ADFs. In the current work we present the concept of strong admissibility of interpretations for (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. Evidential legal reasoning: crossing civil law and common law traditions.Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Carmen Vázquez Rojas (eds.) - 2020 - New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    The First World Congress on Evidential Legal Reasoning, organised by the Legal Culture Chair of the University of Girona, was held between June 6 and 8, 2018. The Congress was attended by 350 participants and featured 18 speakers from four continents. The three days of formal and informal presentations and discussions yielded excellent results, strengthening the interrelation between the legal communities and specialists of different traditions. The 18 papers from the Congress, reviewed by their authors based on the discussions and (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. Contesto istituzionale, scorekeeping e ragionamento giuridico.Julieta A. Rabanos - 2022 - Notizie di Politeia 147:112-117.
    In questo contributo, propongo una breve riflessione su un punto centrale, ma a mio parere problematico, dell’approccio inferenzialista al ragionamento giuridico proposto da Canale e sviluppato nel volume “En busca de lo implícito” (Externado, 2020). In particolare, mi concentrerò sul modo in cui, all’interno del modello di ragionamento giuridico proposto, è (ri)costruito il contesto istituzionale giudiziale per quanto riguarda l’autorità giudiziaria (§2), i partecipanti (§3), e l’ambito del modello stesso (§4).
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Lesser Evils, Mere Permissions and Justifying Reasons in Law.Robert Mullins - 2022 - In Mark McBride & James Penner (eds.), New Essays on the Nature of Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Hart Publishing. pp. 259-280.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. On Universal Relevance in Legal Reasoning.Barbara Levenbook - 1984 - Law and Philosophy 3:1-23.
    The purpose of this essay is to defend a claim that a certain consideration, which I call unworkability, is universally and necessarily relevant to legal reasoning. By that I mean that it is a consideration that must carry legal weight in the justification of some judicial decisions in every legal system in which (1) all disputed matters of law can be adjudicated, and (2) all judicial decisions are to be legally justified. Unworkability's necessary relevance has important implications for a theory (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. Review of The Philosophy of Legal Change: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Processes[REVIEW]Simon Gansinger - 2021 - Jurisprudence 12 (4):637-648.
    Critical review of "The Philosophy of Legal Change," edited by Maciej Chmieliński and Michał Rupniewski, the first volume on its subject matter, with some general remarks on the philosophical methodology of conceptualising legal change.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation.Fabrizio Macagno, Giovanni Sartor & Douglas Walton - 2016 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (1):51-91.
    This paper proposes an argumentation-based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes, which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes that can be used to comparatively evaluate the types of arguments used in cases of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  10. Thomas Lübbig, Rhetorik für Plädoyer und forensischen Streit. [REVIEW]Jens Lemanski - 2021 - Rechtsphilosophie. Zeitschrift Für Die Grundlagen des Rechts 7:326-333.
    Das hier zu besprechende Buch 'Rhetorik für Plädoyer und forensischen Streit' von T. Lübbig kündigt einen Beitrag im Bereich ‚Rhetorik und Recht‘ an, und dabei insbesondere eine Untersuchung zur Rhetorik in der juristischen Praxis.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. The Potential of Abductive Legal Reasoning.Bjarte Askeland - 2020 - Ratio Juris 33 (1):66-81.
    The article describes the potential of abductive legal reasoning as a means of systematically exploring the role of inferences within legal reasoning. Starting out from the structures of abduction as originally presented by Peirce in his four‐horsemen example, the author points to the fact that Peirce actually employed a hypothesis that targeted an institutional fact. Hence the abductive inference has a great potential for categorising new phenomena under norms, yet it is undertheorised within the field of law as compared to (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. Statutory Interpretation: Pragmatics and Argumentation.Douglas Walton, Fabrizio Macagno & Giovanni Sartor - 2021 - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Statutory interpretation involves the reconstruction of the meaning of a legal statement when it cannot be considered as accepted or granted. This phenomenon needs to be considered not only from the legal and linguistic perspective, but also from the argumentative one - which focuses on the strategies for defending a controversial or doubtful viewpoint. This book draws upon linguistics, legal theory, computing, and dialectics to present an argumentation-based approach to statutory interpretation. By translating and summarizing the existing legal interpretative canons (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  13. The Problem of Defeasibility and the Problems of ‘Defeasibility’. [REVIEW]Luís Duarte D'Almeida - 2014 - Jurisprudence 5 (2):401-408.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. Evidential Reasoning.Marcello Di Bello & Bart Verheij - 2011 - In G. Bongiovanni, G. Postema, A. Rotolo, G. Sartor, C. Valentini & D. Walton (eds.), Handbook in Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. pp. 447-493.
    The primary aim of this chapter is to explain the nature of evidential reasoning, the characteristic difficulties encountered, and the tools to address these difficulties. Our focus is on evidential reasoning in criminal cases. There is an extensive scholarly literature on these topics, and it is a secondary aim of the chapter to provide readers the means to find their way in historical and ongoing debates.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  15. Demystifying Legal Reasoning.Larry Alexander & Emily Sherwin (eds.) - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
    Demystifying Legal Reasoning defends the proposition that there are no special forms of reasoning peculiar to law. Legal decision makers engage in the same modes of reasoning that all actors use in deciding what to do: open-ended moral reasoning, empirical reasoning, and deduction from authoritative rules. This book addresses common law reasoning when prior judicial decisions determine the law, and interpretation of texts. In both areas, the popular view that legal decision makers practise special forms of reasoning is false.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  16. Presumption in legal argumentation: from antiquity to the middle ages.Hanns Hohmann - unknown
    This paper traces the evolution of the concept of presumption from a subordinate part of the Roman law to a central feature of legal disputations in medieval law. Special attention will be given to the second edition of the Libellus Pylei Disputato rius by Pilius of Medicina, and to the anonymous Tractatus de Praesumptionibus. My analysis will emphasize elements of these developments useful in the renewed discussion about the role of presumptions in argumentation stimulate d particularly by Richard Gaskins' Burdens (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  17. Law and Defeasibility. A few comments on The Logic of Legal Requirements.Bartosz Brożek - 2014 - Revus 23:165-170.
    The Logic of Legal Requirements. Essays on Defeasibility, edited by Jordi Ferrer Beltrán and Giovanni Battista Ratti, and published by Oxford University Press in 2012, is a very much welcome contribution to one of the most discussed topics in the contemporary legal theory and philosophy. Defeasibility is connected to many essential issues such as the nature of legal reasoning, the structure of legal norms and legal system, the concept of legal validity, as well as the mechanisms and limits of..
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  18. Presumptions in Legal Argumentation.Douglas Walton Fabrizio Macagno - 2012 - Ratio Juris 25 (3):271-300.
    In this paper a theoretical definition that helps to explain how the logical structure of legal presumptions is constructed by applying the Carneades model of argumentation developed in artificial intelligence. Using this model, it is shown how presumptions work as devices used in evidentiary reasoning in law in the event of a lack of evidence to assist a chain of reasoning to move forward to prove or disprove a claim. It is shown how presumptions work as practical devices that may (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  19. More on the Gettier problem and legal proof.Michael S. Pardo - 2011 - Legal Theory 17 (1):75-80.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. The rationality of legal argumentation.Sol Azuelos Atias - 2009 - Pragmatics and Cognition 17 (2):383-401.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21. Defeasible rules and interpersonal accountability.Bruce Chapman - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.
    Defeasible rules are said to allow for the following two-staged sequence, viz., that p → q and yet p & r → not-q. This is puzzling because in the logic of conditionals the sufficiency of p for q cannot normally be undermined if one adds to the antecedent a further proposition r. Critics argue that the better approach to comprehending defeasibility is explicitly to represent the limiting factor r in a single-stage articulation of the rule, viz., as p & not-r (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22. Legal defeasibility in context and the emergence of substantial indefeasibility.Jonathan R. Nash - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23. Defeasibility and adjudication.Richard H. S. Tur - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24. Rules, principles, and Defeasibility.Manuel Atienza & Juan Ruiz Manero - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  25. True exceptions : defeasibility and particularism.Bruno Celano - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press. pp. 268--287.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  26. Reasons for action and defeasibility.María Cristina Redondo - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  27. Defeasibility and open texture.Brian H. Bix - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  28. Acts, normative formulations, and defeasible norms.Ricardo Caracciolo - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29. Defeasibility and legal indeterminacy.Pierluigi Chiassoni - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  30. Defeasibility, axiological gaps, and interpretation.Riccardo Guastini - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  31. Defeasible properties.Rafael Hernández Marín - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32. Defeasibility in legal reasoning.Giovanni Sartor - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  33. Defeasibility, contributory conditionals, and refinement of legal systems.Juliano S. A. Maranhão - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. Against defeasibility of legal rules.Jorge L. Rodríguez - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  35. The Three Faces of Defeasibility in the Law.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 2004 - Ratio Juris 17 (1):118-139.
    In this paper we will analyse the issue of defeasibility in the law, taking into account research carried out in philosophy, artificial intelligence and legal theory. We will adopt a very general idea of legal defeasibility, in which we will include all different ways in which certain legal conclusions may need to be abandoned, though no mistake was made in deriving them. We will argue that defeasibility in the law involves three different aspects, which we will call inference‐based defeasibility, process‐based (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  36. Lesser evils: A closer look at the paradigmatic justification. [REVIEW]Larry Alexander - 2005 - Law and Philosophy 24 (6):611-643.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  37. Why shall legal reasoning be coherent?Aleksander Peczenik - 1993 - In K. B. Agrawal & R. K. Raizada (eds.), Sociological Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy: Random Thoughts On. University Book House.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38. Argumentation schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno.
    This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify the schemes, outlined (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   277 citations  
Analogical Reasoning in Law
  1. Carens’s Cantilever Argument: Global Freedom of Movement, Logical Necessity and the Burden of Proof.Düring Jeremias & Luft Constantin - 2020 - In Matthias Hoesch & Nadine Mooren (eds.), Joseph Carens: Between Aliens and Citizens. Cham: Springer. pp. 161-179.
    In this article we discuss the so-called cantilever argument, used by Joseph Carens to establish a human right to global freedom of movement. First of all, we criticise Carens’s classification of the argument as both an “analogy” and a “logical extension”. Comparing the cantilever argument with Carens’s popular feudalism analogy suggests understanding it solely as an extension, but certainly not as a “logical” one. Finally, we sketch out whether, by means of the cantilever, he succeeds in shifting the burden of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. The Constraining Force of Analogies and the Role of the Judge.Katharina Stevens - 2018 - In Kenneth Einar Himma, Miodrag A. Jovanović & Bojan Spaić (eds.), Unpacking Normativity - Conceptual, Normative and Descriptive Issues. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing. pp. 187 - 205.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3. Analogical Arguments: Inferential Structures and Defeasibility Conditions.Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton & Christopher Tindale - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):221-243.
    The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure and the defeasibility conditions of argument from analogy, addressing the issues of determining the nature of the comparison underlying the analogy and the types of inferences justifying the conclusion. In the dialectical tradition, different forms of similarity were distinguished and related to the possible inferences that can be drawn from them. The kinds of similarity can be divided into four categories, depending on whether they represent fundamental semantic features of the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  4. Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument.Lloyd L. Weinreb - 2005 - Cambridge University Press.
    Legal Reason describes and explains the process of analogical reasoning, which is the distinctive feature of legal argument. It challenges the prevailing view, urged by Edward Levi, Cass Sunstein, Richard Posner and others, which regards analogical reasoning as logically flawed or as a defective form of deductive reasoning. It shows that analogical reasoning in the law is the same as the reasoning used by all of us routinely in everyday life and that it is a valid form of reasoning derived (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  5. Valuing Reasons: Analogy and Epistemic Deference in Legal Argument.Scott Brewer - 1997 - Dissertation, Harvard University
    This thesis addresses two enduring issues in legal theory-- rationality and its association with rule of law values--by offering detailed models of two patterns of legal reasoning. One is reasoning by analogy. The other is the inference process that legal reasoners use when they defer epistemically to scientific experts in the course of reaching legal decisions. Discussions in both chapters reveal that the inference pattern known as "abduction" is a deeply important element of many legal inferences, including analogy and epistemic (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Logik und Axiologie der analogen Rechtsanwendung. [REVIEW]K. B. L. - 1962 - Review of Metaphysics 15 (3):525-526.
    A meticulous examination of the logical and axiological principles of analogical inference in legal reasoning. The first part presents an elementary but useful survey of traditional and modern logical analyses of analogy and analogical inference. In the second part, these concepts are examined in their juridical applications. Much is made of the conclusion that analogical inference cannot be rendered "binding" by logical considerations alone; to make up for this in legal reasoning, axiological principles must be employed.--L. K. B.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument. [REVIEW]Timothy Kaye - 2005 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 26 (4):307-312.
    Lloyd Weinreb’s Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument is the latest contribution to a familiar debate. Since the Second World War, a recurrent theme of Anglo–American jurisprudence has been the desire to explain and justify the process of courtroom adjudication, especially at appellate level. Such explanation and justification has proved extraordinarily elusive. According to the doctrine of separation of powers, the functions of the judiciary must differ from those of the legislature and executive. We therefore need to (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. Argument from analogy in legal rhetoric.Douglas Walton - 2013 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (3):279-302.
    This paper applies recent work on scripts and stories developed as tools of evidential reasoning in artificial intelligence to model the use of argument from analogy as a rhetorical device of persuasion. The example studied is Gerry Spence’s closing argument in the case of Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corporation, said to be the most persuasive closing argument ever used in an American trial. It is shown using this example how argument from analogy is based on a similarity premise where similarity between (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  9. Analogy Exercises for Teaching Legal Reasoning.Peter Suber - unknown
    Legal reasoning is not the same as the reasoning in mathematics or the physical sciences. It is like them. Specifying the likeness in more detail, and deciding whether there is more likeness than unlikeness, are the kinds of tasks that legal reasoning is better adapted to do than mathematical or scientific reasoning.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  10. Argument from Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2009 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2):154-182.
    Argument from analogy is a common and formidable form of reasoning in law and in everyday conversation. Although there is substantial literature on the subject, according to a recent survey ( Juthe 2005) there is little fundamental agreement on what form the argument should take, or on how it should be evaluated. Th e lack of conformity, no doubt, stems from the complexity and multiplicity of forms taken by arguments that fall under the umbrella of analogical reasoning in argumentation, dialectical (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  11. Understanding blended multi-source arguments as arguments from partial analogies.Marcello Guarini - 2010 - Ratio Juris 23 (1):65-100.
    This paper identifies a type of multi-source (case-based) reasoning and differentiates it from other types of analogical reasoning. Work in cognitive science on mental space mapping or conceptual blending is used to better understand this type of reasoning. The type of argument featured herein will be shown to be a kind of source-blended argument. While it possesses some similarities to traditionally conceived analogical arguments, there are important differences as well. The triple contract (a key development in the usury debates of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  12. Analogy in legal reasoning.Lawrence C. Becker - 1973 - Ethics 83 (3):248-255.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
1 — 50 / 97