Legal reasoning

[Ulax]

Hey folks,

I'd like some help contemplating and generating insights in regards to legal reasoning.

During my legal studies I've been constantly perplexed by the question of how to decide legal cases.

Why should a case be decided in one way compared to another?

I'm quite firm in my contention that all reasoning is inherently arbitrary, owing to my being persuaded by the infinite/ epistemic regress argument.

Which leaves me in a pickle about how to approach this sort of issue. I've been contemplating this and reading academic papers on this for years but nothing quite resonates. So, would appreciate people chucking ideas at me.

[Sucuk Ekmek]

2 hours ago, Ulax said:

 

Why should a case be decided in one way compared to another?

 to improve our civilization. 

[Lila9]

I believe it depends on social values, paradigms, the moral level of a specific society, and its legal system. These factors determine what is perceived as moral or immoral and there exists a hierarchy of morality where certain actions are considered more immoral than others.

The concepts of good and bad also play a role.

Also, individual factors such as personal motivation, values, worldview, life experience, and upbringing are influential in shaping moral judgments.

I assume that each case is unique and involves considering various parameters, including the potential consequences of each decision, as well as whether it is fair, just, and technically possible in accordance with the law that can be outdated, not comprehensive enough or complicated.

Many times, there are conflicting opinions, and often legal decisions are influenced by those who are more powerful or well connected.

Or just very confident in their resolution.

Public opinions can also hold power and influence in legal decisions, especially when legal cases receive significant publicity or are widely discussed.

These are my insights based on watching crime documentaries.

I hope it was helpful somehow and apologize if I misunderstood the question.

[Ajax]

Because the law is based on past experiences rather than truth and ethics ( which I define as implementing the best possible solution).

Imagine taking on a task and making a new rule for every new problem and decision made. Eventually, you are going to create an ungodly mess of complexity. Just like any chaotic game, the people are structured in a hierarchy so that the semi strong will take orders from those above them because they are comforted by the fact that people are below them so they can feel secure. Anyway, the advantage of the hierarchy is that someone will make a decision and many people are willing to go along with it because they feel secure in their position. These legal decisions are then made by the top accordingly to the time, place and their worldview.

So now that some decisions are made and this massive mess of systems is starting to run smoothly so they don't want to really mess something up so they go along with it every if it isn't so relevant anymore.

That is one perspective of many, but I am ready to do something else lol.

[Bird Larry]

@Ulax First mistake, use simpler vocabulary. People don't like it.

It's hard to persuade people. 

Edited June 24, 2023 by Bird Larry