logout
help
framed forum
go pro
subscriptions
account
create thread
PhilosophyGround >> Induction
| 1/3/06 2:31 PM | |
hekster
Edited: 03-Jan-06 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 4749 |
"Is that simply a poor form of inductive reasoning?" No, legal reasoning is exactly the sort of situation that induction is the correct tool for. You cannot make a rigid system in law. Circumstances and societies change with scale, time, and technology. Therefore, we must always reassess the validity of laws and introduce new laws to adapt to the changeable format that law applies to. If you run into alot of black crows, that doesn't mean you will always see black crows, but if you are going to bet your dinner on it, go with black. |
| 1/3/06 3:13 PM | |
|
FudoMyoo
Edited: 03-Jan-06 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 12774 |
"Therefore, we must always reassess the validity of laws and introduce new laws to adapt to the changeable format that law applies to." I agree with that, but I think this expresses the positivistic view in philosophy of law. Many scandinavian countries work like this, but in America I think they prefer the view of so called natural law. |
| 1/5/06 11:49 AM | |
|
hekster
Edited: 05-Jan-06 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 4753 |
I think that is more of a doctrinal thing. Public servants are better public servants if they have an association between the law and some sort of natural objectivity in the law. There is a difference between describing how functions and limits of the law and what people need to believe to make it work. |
Reply Post
You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.
