Una concepción tradicional de la argumentación jurídica considera que se debe resolver casos jurídicos a través de subsunción y deducción. Hugo Zuleta disputa esta posición, rechazando así la "concepción puente" de las normas, la que fue defendida en particular por Carlos Alchourrón y Eugenio Bulygin. Según la "concepción puente" la norma condicional incluye una modalidad deóntica solo en su consecuencia, mientras su antecedente consiste en un enunciado descriptivo. En cambio, Zuleta propone la "concepción insular", que pone la modalidad deóntica adelante (...) del condicional ). Discutiré estas concepciones, evaluando su adecuación en distintos ámbitos de aplicación. En particular, defenderé la tesis de que la crítica a la "concepción puente" tiene razón en cuanto se trata de conflictos normativos. Así, la "concepción insular" puede tener una aplicación importante en la teoría de los principios, que trata justamente del análisis de normas en conflicto. The traditional conception of legal argumentation is that legal cases are resolved by means of subsumption and deduction. Hugo Zuleta disputes this position, rejecting the "bridge conception" of norms, which was defended in particular by Carlos Alchourrón and Eugenio Bulygin. According to the "bridge conception", the conditional norm includes a deontic modality only in its consequence, whilst the antecedent consists of a descriptive sentence. By contrast, Zuleta defends the "isle conception", which puts the deontic modality in front of the conditional ). I will discuss these conceptions, assessing their adequacy in distinct fields of application. In particular, I will defend the thesis that the critique of the "bridge conception" is correct in the case of norm conflicts. Thus, the "isle conception" can have an important application in the theory of principles and the analysis of norm conflicts. (shrink)

The first part of this work analyses the universalist and the particularist conceptions of reasons. The second part projects this analysis to the legal domain. The author stresses that universalism and particularism regarding reasons are mutually exclusive theories linked to incompatible conceptions of norms, i.e. norms as strict universal conditionals and norms as defeasible conditionals. In giving an account of this tenet, different meanings of universality and defeasibility are explored. A parallel debate regarding reasons can be found in the legal (...) domain, where two contrasting categories of norms are usually distinguished: rules and principles. On this issue the author argues that the conception of legal reasons depends on the way in which this contrast between different kinds of legal norms is shaped. (shrink)

The phenomenon of defeasibility has long been a central theme in legal literature. This essay aims to shed new light on that phenomenon by clarifying some fundamental conceptual issues. First, the most widespread definition of legal defeasibility is examined and criticized. The essay shows that such a definition is poorly constructed, inaccurate and generates many problems. Indeed, the definition hides the close relationship between legal defeasibility and legal interpretation. Second, this essay argues that no new definition is needed. I will (...) show that from an interpretative standpoint, there is nothing special about legal defeasibility. Contrary to what some authors maintain, no unique or privileged source of legal defeasibility exists, nor are there privileged arguments to justify it. Specifically, legal defeasibility refers to interpretative outcomes deriving from interpretative arguments that, on the one hand, are very different from one another, and, on the other, are often employed to justify different interpretative outcomes. In the legal field, the problems related to defeasibility have little in common with the problems that this label covers in other areas—such as logic or epistemology—and they are nothing but the well-known problems related to legal interpretation. In conclusion, this paper argues that as far as legal argumentation is concerned, the notion of legal defeasibility lacks explanatory power, and it should be abandoned. (shrink)

This paper provides an analysis of contrary-to-duty reasoning from the proof-theoretical perspective of category theory. While Chisholm’s paradox hints at the need of dyadic deontic logic by showing that monadic deontic logics are not able to adequately model conditional obligations and contrary-to-duties, other arguments can be objected to dyadic approaches in favor of non-monotonic foundations. We show that all these objections can be answered at one fell swoop by modeling conditional obligations within a deductive system defined as an instance of (...) a symmetric monoidal closed category. Using category theory as a foundational framework for logic, we show that it is possible to model conditional normative reasoning and conflicting obligations within a monadic approach without adding further operators or considering deontic conditionals as primitive. (shrink)

Según una sofisticada versión del llamado rule of law, las reglas del derecho deben ser generales, en el sentido de que deben regular clases de casos, no situaciones particulares. La posibilidad de prever cuáles van a ser las decisiones jurídicas depende, entre otras cosas, de este carácter general de las normas. Pero junto a la previsibilidad y certeza que aporta, el carácter general de las reglas puede tener un reverso negativo: en algunas ocasiones, cuando se aplican a algunas circunstancias particulares, (...) lo que parecía funcionar de forma satisfactoria en la teoría o en abstracto, proporciona soluciones inadmisibles (inadmisibles con arreglo a alguna concepción de la justicia). Esos casos son conocidos como casos recalcitrantes. En este artículo propongo una manera de entender el razonamiento jurídico-práctico que mitiga ese reverso negativo de las reglas generales conservando buena parte de la certeza que aportan. (shrink)

Much has been said about the logical difference between rules and principles, yet few authors have focused on the distinct logical connectives linking the normative conditions of both norms. I intend to demonstrate that principles, unlike rules, are norms whose antecedents are linguistically formulated in a generic fashion, and thus logically described as inclusive disjunctions. This core feature incorporates the relevance criteria of normative antecedents into the world of principles and also explains their aptitude to conflict with opposing norms, namely (...) that their consequents are fulfilled to varying extents more frequently than those of rules. I conclude that the property of genericity should be predicated to the norm antecedent of principles, more precisely to the hypothetical action. This is of paramount importance to explain, in terms of logical implication and exclusion, the expansibility of competing principles, in contrast with the exclusive character of conflicting rules. (shrink)

The concept of legal power is important in the law since, with regard to actions having legal effect, the “exercise of legal power” delimits those actions for which manifestation of intention to achieve a legal effect is essential for the effect to ensue. The paper proposes a definition that captures this feature of legal power and marks it off from “direct effect,” as well as from permissibility and practical ability to achieve the legal effect. This analysis of power is limited (...) to the “immediate” legal power of a physical person characterized by the power-holder achieving a legal result by the power-holder's own behaviour. It is argued that in the literature on power the concept of legal power is frequently construed in such a way that it becomes either too broad or too narrow. (shrink)

Obligations can be affected by knowledge. Several approaches exist to formalize knowledge-based obligations, but no formalism has been developed yet to capture the dynamic interaction between knowledge and obligations. We introduce the dynamic extension of an existing logic for knowledge-based obligations here. We motivate the logic by analyzing several scenarios and by showing how it can capture in an original manner several fundamental deontic notions such as absolute, prima facie and all-things-considered obligations. Finally, in the dynamic epistemic logic tradition, we (...) provide reduction axioms for the dynamic operator of the new logic. (shrink)

The 1985 paper by Carlos Alchourrón (1931–1996), Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson (AGM), "On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions" was the starting-point of a large and rapidly growing literature that employs formal models in the investigation of changes in belief states and databases. In this review, the first twentyfive years of this development are summarized. The topics covered include equivalent characterizations of AGM operations, extended representations of the belief states, change operators not included in (...) the original framework, iterated change, applications of the model, its connections with other formal frameworks, computatibility of AGM operations, and criticism of the model. (shrink)

The 1985 paper by Carlos Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson, “On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions” was the starting-point of a large and rapidly growing literature that employs formal models in the investigation of changes in belief states and databases. In this review, the first twenty-five years of this development are summarized. The topics covered include equivalent characterizations of AGM operations, extended representations of the belief states, change operators not included in the original (...) framework, iterated change, applications of the model, its connections with other formal frameworks, computatibility of AGM operations, and criticism of the model. (shrink)

After presenting the current situation of epistemological research in Latin America and part of its history, this entry will address five topics: skepticism (especially in its Pyrrhonian stripe), core epistemology, formal epistemology, Wittgenstein’s thought in connection with epistemology and skepticism, and epistemology of law. It should be noted from the outset that the entry does not purport to provide a comprehensive account of epistemology in Latin America, but rather to paint a general picture of it by focusing on the main (...) issues that have been discussed within that field. (shrink)

Alchourrón devoted his last years to the analysis of the notion of defeasible conditionalization. He developed a formal system capturing the essentials of this notion. His definition of the defeasible conditional is given in terms of strict implication operator and a modal operator f which is interpreted as a revision function at the language level. In this paper, we will point out that this underlying revision function is more general than the well known AGM revision [4]. In addition, we will (...) give a complete characterization of that more general kind of revision and will show how permits to unify models of revision given by other authors. Alchourrón dedicó sus últimos años al análisis de la noción de condicionalización derrotable. Desarrolló un sistema formal que captura los aspectos esenciales de esta noción. Su definición de condicional revisable está dada en términos del operador de implicación estricta y un operador modal f el cual es interpretado en el nivel del lenguaje como una función de revisión. En este trabajo señalamos que la función de revisión subyacente es más general que la bien conocida función de revisión de AGM. Además, presentaremos una caracterización completa de una clase de revisión más general y mostraremos cómo nuestro modelo permite unificar los modelos de revisión propuestos por otros autores. (shrink)

En este trabajo se propone, en primer lugar, un análisis informal de las principales ideas de la concepción filosófica de Carlos Alchourrón en torno a la naturaleza de los lenguajes derrotables, en especial de los lenguajes normativos. Esta concepción que, a su vez, conforma el trasfondo de sus propuestas en el ámbito de la lógica de condicionales derrotables, supone que la derrotabilidad es un rasgo que se ubica en la dimensión pragmática del lenguaje. Se discuten sus consecuencias con relación a (...) diversas cuestiones, teniendo en cuenta la tesis de Alchourrón según la cual las proposiciones y las normas son el significado de las expresiones usadas en contextos definidos. En segundo lugar, se sostiene que lo que Alchourrón denomina "concepción disposicional de la derrotabilidad", en su artículo "Sobre Derecho y Lógica" representa -al menos en lo que respecta al ámbito normativo- un cambio sustancial de su idea de la derrotabilidad. Esta modificación supone, en relación a las normas, adoptar una versión de la teoría disposicional del valor. Se sostiene que, sin embargo, la nueva propuesta no es plausible, porque no puede superar a lo que puede ser denominado "el problema del límite de las disposiciones", por un lado, ni tampoco "el problema de la indeterminación necesaria", por el otro. The purpose of this paper is, in the first place, to provide an informal analysis of the main ideas of Carlos Alchourrón' s philosophical conception about the nature of defeasible languages, and in particular about that of normative languages. This conception, which constitutes also the background for his proposals in the field of the logic of defeasible conditionals, assumes that defeasibility belongs to the pragmatic dimension of language. Its consequences in relation to several questions are discussed, taking into account Alchourrón' s thesis according to which propositions and norms are the meaning of the expressions used in defined contexts. Secondly, it is maintained that what Alchourrón denominates "dispositional conception of defeasibility" in his article "On Law and Logic" represents a substantial change of his ideas about defeasibility, at least in what concerns the normative field. As far as norms are concerned this modification entails the adoption of a version of the dispositional theory of the value. Nevertheless, it is argued that this new proposal is not plausible because it cannot solve neither what can be called the "problem of the limit of dispositions" nor the "problem of the necessary indetermination". (shrink)

En este trabajo se analizan los conceptos de laguna axiológica y de derrotabilidad desde el punto de vista de una teoría "realista" de interpretación. En base a algunos ejemplos se intenta mostrar que ambos conceptos aparecen como resultado de la interpretación de los textos jurídicos. Tanto las lagunas axiológicas, como la derrotabilidad no son propiedades objetivas de sistemas jurídicos, porque dependen de las valoraciones de los intérpretes y la acción de interpretar no es conocer el derecho, sino contribuir a hacerlo. (...) The analysis of the concepts of axiological gaps and of defeasibility from the point of view of a "realistic" theory of interpretation shows -by means of several examples- that both concepts are the result of interpretation of legal texts. Axiological gaps and defeasibility are not objective properties of legal systems, because they depend essentially on valuations of the interpreters and interpretation is not cognition of law, but participation in making law. (shrink)