This course will explore a cluster of issues,
concerning concepts, conceptual grasp,
and incomplete and incorrect understanding
of concepts. The class will range across
philosophy of mind and language, meta-ethics,
philosophy of law, and other areas. The course
will also provide a systematic study of the rule
of law. One of the most enduring questions
in legal theory is the extent to which legal
arguments is, can be, or should be rational.
Some vigorously maintain that it can and should
be rational (even when in particular instances
it is not). Others are deeply skeptical about
claims to legal rationality. Often this debate
is framed as a dispute about whether the rule
of law is a realizable, viable, valuable ideal for
lawyers, judges, and citizens. This course will
explore those closely related ideas of legal
rationality and the rule of law. To investigate
these abstract themes in concrete detail, the
course will examine the characteristic types of
Romano-Germanic and Anglo-American legal
argument and legal interpretation: deductive
inference (often used in legal interpretation),
inductive inference (often used in reasoning
about evidence), analogical inference (often
used in reasoning from precedent), and
inference to the best explanation (used in both
reasoning about evidence and in reasoning
about how to characterize a fact pattern from
a legal standpoint). Readings will be from
relevant areas in philosophy, judicial opinions,
and jurisprudence.
Language of Instruction: English (legal terms,
however, are also given in Arabic and French).