It is trite that the validity of a particular argument for good lawyers must be according to certain principles of careful reasoning. However, these principles should be met in the organisation of paradigms or premises of logic or logical reasoning. These basic principles of legal reasoning are:
- THE PRINCIPLE OF IDEM
This stipulates that a statement which is true must always remain true and must convey a truth value. The principle posits that the identity of certain construct , in terms of explicating paradigms, should remain constant, for example ‘Man’ as a concept has definitive description in the real world, and must therefore remain so in symbol as well. Man is Man and not anything else.
Examples
- Truth is truth
- Prejury is prejury
iii. If the law is abolished, then the law is abolished.
The principle underscores the truth value element in an argument or statement. This principle claims that if ” A is ‘ A ‘ then it is ‘ A ‘. If any statement or proposition is true then it is true. If the antecedent forms part of the propositions that constitute an argument, then. It provides evidence for the truth of the consequent as the conclusion. The truth of the premises must reflect in the truth of the conclusion.
For example;
If all lawyers are liars ———– premise
Michael is a lawyer ————- premise
Then Michael is a liar. ———— conclusion
The truth of the consequent is based on that of the antecedent. But if the antecedent is false then the consequent is also false.
For example;
If all lawyers are liars ————- premise
Michael is not a lawyer ————- premise
Therefore, Michael is not a liar———– conclusion
- THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTRADICTION
The principle of contradiction declares that no statement can be both true and false at the same time. However, a thing cannot be and at the same time not be. A liar cannot be a lawyer and not be a liar at the same time.
For example;
- Michael is a liar and Michael is not a liar —— is contradictory and therefore false.
- The good boy is bad ——– is contradictory and therefore false.
- THE PRINCIPLE OF EXCLUSA MEDIUM
The principle asserts that a statement is either true or false, whereas a middle ground is excluded. A thing can be said to be either White or not White. An object is either a Table or not a Table.
The principle of exclusa medium has been object of more attacks than either of the other principles. It has been argued that its acceptance leads to a ” two – valued orientation which implies among other things, thať everything is either White or Black, without any middle ground excluded. But although the statement ” This is black ” cannot be jointly true along with this statement. ”This is White”. The contradictory of ” This is white ” is ‘‘this is. Black” and one of these statements must be true. If the word ” white” is used in the same sense in both statements when restricted to statements containing completely unambiguous; perfectly precise terms, the principle of exclusa medium is perfectly true.
Conclusively, a proposition is either true or false. These principles provide the basis for the evaluation of legal reasoning. They affect the determination of validity or invalidity of legal reasoning process for the legal profession.
WRITTEN BY: AKINOLA MICHAEL .A
