CALL US : 1-876-287-2224 and 1-876-787-0377

The Tapestry of Reason: An Inquiry into the Nature of Coherence and its Role in Legal Argument (European Academy of Legal Theory Series)

The Tapestry of Reason: An Inquiry into the Nature of Coherence and its Role in Legal Argument (European Academy of Legal Theory Series)

by Amalia Amaya
Price :
$142.50
Quantity :  
  • ISBN-13: 978-1849460705
  • ISBN-10: 1849460701
  • Series: European Academy of Legal Theory Series
  • Format: Paperback
  • Publisher: Hart Publishing
  • Publication Date: February 5, 2015
  • Product Dimensions: 6.1 x 1.4 x 9.2 inches
  • Language: English
  • Shipping Weight: 13lbs

DESCRIPTION

In recent years, coherence theories of law and adjudication have been extremely influential in legal scholarship. These theories significantly advance the case for coherentism in law. Nonetheless, in the field of coherence theory in law, a number of problems remain. This ambitious new study develops a coherence-based theory of legal reasoning and, in so doing, addresses or at least mitigates these problems. The book is organized in three parts. The first part provides a critical analysis of the main coherentist approaches to both normative and factual reasoning in law. The second part investigates coherence theory in a number of fields that are relevant to law: coherence theories of epistemic justification * coherentist approaches to belief revision and theory-choice * coherence theories of practical and moral reasoning * coherence-based approaches to discourse interpretation. Taking this interdisciplinary analysis as a starting point, the third part of the book develops a coherence-based model of legal reasoning. While this model builds upon the standard theory of legal reasoning, it also leads to rethinking some of the basic assumptions that characterize this theory and suggests some lines along which it may be further developed. Thus, ultimately, the book not only improves upon the current state of coherence theory in law, but also contributes to the larger debate about how to articulate a theory of legal reasoning that results in better decision-making.