Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legal Reasoning
Legal Reasoning
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
LEGAL REASONING
Role Name Affiliation
Principal Investigator Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh Vice Chancellor, National
Law University, Delhi
Co-Principal Investigator Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai Registrar, National Law
University Delhi
Paper Coordinator Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai Registrar, National Law
University Delhi
Content Writer/Author Dr Manish Singh Dr RML National Law
University, Lucknow
Content Reviewer Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai Registrar & Professor,
National Law University
Delhi
DESCRIPTION OF MODULE
Learning Outcomes
This module provides for legal reasoning. This aims at following learning outcomes:
To introduce the concept of legal reasoning and its importance.
To understand the basic components in legal reasoning.
To understand the role of logical reasoning in law
To know about the various types of legal reasoning methods in terms of kinds
of arguments.
The Roadmap
1. Introduction.
2. Basic components in legal reasoning
3. Logical reasoning: types and principles
3.1.Types of arguments
3.1.1 Deductive method
3.1.1.a Stages in the deductive method
3.1.1.b Merits and demerits of deductive method
3.1.2 Inductive method
3.1.2.a Merits and demerits of inductive method
3.1.3 Inverse Deductive method
3.1.4 Analogy
3.1.5 Fortiori
1. Introduction
There are four basic components in legal reasoning which applies to legal process—
logic, Justice, experience and policy.
a. Logic refers to the internal consistency and equal application of the law. It
refers to more than formal logic, formal logic is the science of deriving a
conclusion front stated premises; it is not directly concerned with either true or
false. A person can obtain a false but logically correct conclusion from a false
premise. Therefore, logic prefers to life correct application of precedents and
equal application of law.
b. Justice is to do right between the parties. Philosophical thought is an
ingredient of justice though it is based on evidence.
c. Experience is an important component in legal reasoning. The life of the law
has not been logic; it has been experience. Experience gives power to give
good legal judgments.
d. The last component is the policy. The term ‘policy’ may be used to describe
the process of approaching a problem. Policy is used to mean a scientific
attempt to peer into the future and foresee the consequences of a decision. The
use of this approach requites the individual to put aside die current interests of
the parties and to keep in mind how this decision would affect other persons in
future.
Among the four components, logical thinking is the core concept of legal reasoning as
scientific generalizations are based on logical explanations. Every science is based on
the principles of logic or reason. Science involves die rules of reasoning or use of
arguments. Arguments are made on the basis of connection, relationship, association,
property, common variable or attribute between things and activities mentioned in the
argument.
Induction is the most often used method of scientific research. Induction is a process
of reasoning from particular cases to whole group of cases, from specific instances to
general rules. The inductive method is also known as historical, or expirical or a
posteriori method. It may be described as practical approach to the research problems.
It tries to remove the gulf between theory and practice. This method examines various
causes one after another and tries to establish causal relations between them. General
principles are laid down after examining a large number of special instances or facts.
The method is said to be ‘empirical’ because the formulation of principle is made
only after an extensive compilation of the raw data of experience. The data may be
historical or statistical data, The historical instances are qualitative while the
statistical data are quantitative. Generalizations are made after the analysis of data.
Inductive reasoning starts from observable facts from which a generalization is
inferred. Let us take an example:
(1) Man A died
(2) Man B died and so on
(3) All men are mortal.
One comes across the death of so many individuals. On the basis of these observed
facts, one may infer that all human beings are mortal basing on inductive reasoning.
To give an example for inductive reasoning, we can cite the work of Dr. Goring. He
conducted a research on Lombrosian concept that the criminals constitute a distinct
physical type. His making comparison of several thousand criminals and non-
criminals, finds in his investigation that there is no relation between the criminal
behaviour and physical anomalies, which are proposed by Lombroso.
Induction operates on faith that in the basic course of things if for a long time
regularity is evidenced, then it is a Surety enough for the inference that it will
continue in the future.
If the premise and conclusion in the logical case are both known, some probability
relations may be established between them and this may serve as a paradigm of an
inductive inference.
Inductive explanations also have explanandum and explanans. The explanandum is
generally probable, explanandum cannot be deducted from die explanans with
certainty. The explanandum is implied by the explanans. The explanans support or
provide evidence for the explanandum but does not make the latter certain. The
explanans can be true and the explanandum can still be false in the inductive
explanation. Inductive explanations explain either the probability of individual events
or statistical generalizations.
Inductive process examines the particular phenomena and discovers from them the
general law. There are two laws which bind the process of induction, i.e., the law of
universal causation and the law of uniformity of nature; Perfect induction is a method
of arriving at a universal proposition after taking into consideration all the individual
instances of phenomena under Investigation.
Induction argument derives a generalized conclusion on die basis of particulars which
are often empirically derived observations. The premise of an inductive argument
makes die conclusion probable, not certain. The inductive approach relies on the
scientific discovery of facts. One characteristic of inductive argument is that it
establishes a conclusion with a content which goes beyond its premise. Prom the
observation of a sample, an inference is made about a whole population. This la
called the ‘inductive leap’, jumping from the premise, which relates to an observed
sample, to the conclusion which concerns with entire population. The greater the
number or representative units in the premise or observed in the sample, the smaller is
the inductive leap. The premise of an inductive argument does not establish the
conclusion conclusively. The premise of a valid argument maybe true, but the
conclusion may still be false. Its premise only Supports the conclusion but it does not
make the latter certain,
3.1.2. a Merits and demerits of Inductive Method
1. More realistic.—This method is more realistic because it studies the changes in
conditions surrounding the social activities of man and their effect on social activities
are analyzed and displayed,
2. Possibility of verification.—The method is more useful because its propositions
can be tested and verified easily.
3. Proper attention to complexities.—This method lakes full note of the complex
relationship found in actual life and examines them carefully.
4. Dynamic approach.—This method takes into consideration the changeable nature
of assumptions in its analysis. It does n6t consider facts to b>e stable. It is a dynamic
method.
Demerits of Inductive Method
1. It is a difficult method.—This method cannot be used by a beginner or a common
man because it is impossible for an ordinary person to collect facts, study them and
derive some conclusions out of them. The cost is too much for him.
2. Danger of bias.—The propositions obtained through this method are based upon
data collected by investigators. Therefore, there is a danger of investigator’s bias
entering into propositions.
3. Limited scope of verification.—Since the propositions obtained through this
method are based on a few facts, the universal applicability of these propositions is
always in doubt.
4. Limited use in socio-legal studies.—This method is commonly used for lifeless
objects of the physical science. In socio-legal studies, we study a man’s problems. As
such, die method has limited use.
If anyone asks which method is preferred, the answer is both. Prof. Marshall says,
“Induction and deduction are both needed for scientific study as right and left foot for
walking.”
Larrabee remarks, “If extreme rationalist (Deductionist) is like a spider spinning out
theories from within the extreme, expiricist (Inductionist) is to be compared.......to an
ant which piles useless heaps of facts. Better than either the spider or an ant is the bee,
which selectively gathers pollen and transforms it into honey, to be a bee one has to
mingle both induction and deduction in intricate way”.
3.1.3 The Inverse Deductive Method
J.S. Mill is the chief advocate of the Inverse Deductive Method. It is a combination of
inductive generalisations obtained by means of the comparative method or by
statistical method, -’with deduction from more ultimate laws. It is a way to arrive at
reality through experiment, observation and conclusion. This method starts with the
use of deduction and then uses the method of induction to find out die reason of die
phenomena, which is under study.
3.1.4 Analogy
Analogy is a process of reasoning between parallel cases. In this method, conclusions
are arrived at by reasoning of resemblance where from partial resemblance or
agreement of two things or issues to each other. J.S. Mill says that “Two things
resemble each other in one or more respects; a certain proposition it true of the one;
therefore it is true of the other.” Case law involves reasoning by analogy. In practice,
die judiciary proceeds on the basis of a number of points of resemblance of relations
or attributes between cases by applying the old rule to the new case.
3.1.5 Fortori
Fortori is another method of reasoning. Fortori provides that if something is
prohibited then it is assumed that anything more obvious is prohibited.