Open AccessAnalogical Arguments in Ethics and Law: A Defence of Deductivism
Author(s) -
Fábio Perin Shecaira
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
informal logic
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.368
H-Index - 15
eISSN - 2293-734X
pISSN - 0824-2577
DOI - 10.22329/il.v33i3.3778
Subject(s) - schema (genetic algorithms) , normative , inference , argument (complex analysis) , epistemology , analogy , a priori and a posteriori , law , philosophy , computer science , political science , biochemistry , chemistry , machine learning
The paper provides a qualified defence of Bruce Waller’s deductivist schema for a priori analogical arguments in ethics and law. One crucial qualification is that the schema represents analogical arguments as complexes composed of one deductive inference (hence “deductivism”) but also of one non-deductive subargument. Another important qualification is that the schema is informed by normative assumptions regarding the conditions that an analogical argument must satisfy in order for it to count as an optimal instance of its kind. Waller’s schema (in qualified form) is defended from criticisms formulated by Trudy Govier, Marcello Guarini and Lilian Bermejo-Luque.