Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning (Law, State, and Practical Reason)

Is legal reasoning rationally persuasive, working within a discernible structure and using recognisable kinds of arguments? Does it belong to rhetoric in this sense, or to the domain of the merely 'rhetorical' in an adversative sense? Is there any reasonable certainty about legal outcomes indispute-situations? If not, what becomes of the Rule of Law? Neil MacCormick's book tackles these questions in establishing an overall theory of legal reasoning which shows the essential part 'legal syllogism' plays in reasoning aimed at the application of law, while acknowledging that simpledeductive reasoning, though always necessary, is very rarely sufficient to justify a decision.There are always problems of relevancy, classification or interpretation in relation to both facts and law. In justifying conclusions about such problems, reasoning has to be universalistic and yet fully sensitive to the particulars of specific cases. How is this possible? Is legal justificationat this level consequentialist in character or principled and right-based?Both normative coherence and narrative coherence have a part to play in justification, and in accounting for the validity of arguments by analogy. Looking at such long-discussed subjects as precedent and analogy and the interpretative character of the reasoning involved, Neil MacCormick expandsupon his celebrated Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (OUP 1978 and 1994) and restates his 'institutional theory of law'.
When cases come before courts can we predict the outcome? Is legal reasoning rationally persuasive, working within a formal structure and using recognizable forms of arguments to produce predictable results? Or is legal reasoning mere "rhetoric" in the pejorative sense, open to use, and abuse, to achieve whatever ends unscrupulous politicians, lawyers and judges desire? If the latter what becomes of the supposed security of living under the rule of law?

This book tackles these questions by presenting a theory of legal reasoning, developing the author's classic account given in Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (OUP, 1978). It explains the essential role syllogism plays in reasoning used to apply the law, and the elements needed in addition to deductive reasoning to give a full explanation of how law is applied and decisions justified through the use of precedent, analogy and principle.

The book highlights that problems of interpretation, classification and relevance will always arise when applying general legal standards to individual cases. In justifying their conclusions about such problems, judges need to be faithful to categorical legal reasons and yet fully sensitive to the particulars of the cases before them. How can this be achieved, and how should we evaluate the possible approaches judges could take to solving these problems? By addressing these issues the book asks questions at the heart of understanding the nature of law and the moral complexity of the rule of law.

When cases come before courts can we predict the outcome? Is legal reasoning rationally persuasive, working within a formal structure and using recognisable forms of arguments to produce predictable results? Or is legal reasoning mere ‘rhetoric’ in the pejorative sense, open to use, and abuse, to achieve whatever ends unscrupulous politicians, lawyers and judges desire? If the latter what becomes of the supposed security of living under the rule of law? This book tackles these questions by presenting a theory of legal reasoning. It explains the essential role syllogism plays in reasoning used to apply the law, and the elements needed in addition to deductive reasoning to give a full explanation of how law is applied and decisions justified through the use of precedent, analogy, and principle. The book highlights that problems of interpretation, classification, and relevance will always arise when applying general legal standards to individual cases. In justifying their conclusions about such problems, judges need to be faithful to categorical legal reasons and yet fully sensitive to the particulars of the cases before them. How can this be achieved, and how should we evaluate the possible approaches judges could take to solving these problems? By addressing these issues the book asks questions at the heart of understanding the nature of law and the moral complexity of the rule of law Is Legal Reasoning Rationally Persuasive, Working Within A Discernible Structure And Using Recognisable Kinds Of Arguments? Does It Belong To Rhetoric In This Sense, Or To The Domain Of The Merely 'rhetorical' In An Adversative Sense? Neil Maccormick Tackles These Questions To Provide A Comparative Analysis Of Legal Reasoning. Institutional Theory And The Lawmaker's Perspective -- The Rule Of Law And The Arguable Character Of Law -- On The Legal Syllogism -- Defending Deductivism -- Universals And Particulars -- Judging By Consequences -- Arguing About Interpretation -- Using Precedents -- Being Reasonable -- Coherence, Principles, And Analogies -- Legal Narratives -- Arguing Defeasibly -- Judging Mistakenly? Neil Maccormick. Includes Bibliographical References And Indexes. "Both normative coherence and narrative coherence have a part to play in justification, and in accounting for the validity of arguments by analogy. Looking at such long-discussed subjects as precedent and analogy and the interpretative character of the reasoning involved, Neil MacCormick responds to critics of his celebrated Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (OUP 1978 and 1994) and restates his 'institutional theory of law'."--Résumé de l'éditeur