What is meant by the term "rational legal argument"? To what extent can legal theory permit legal reasoning to be rational? Is the demand for rationality in legal affairs justified? What are the criteria for rationality? In addressing these questions, Alexy first develops a general theory of practical discourse based on insights from Anglo-Saxon and German moral and legal philosophy. He then sets out a new theory of rational legal discourse, which will stand as a major contribution to the study of legal reasoning.
The blurb said this is meant to be useful to practicers of law. This is a lie, it's really only useful to legal theorists who are already deeply familiar with theory of discourse in contemporary and modern analytical philosophy.
The blurb said this is meant to be useful to practicers of law. This is a lie, it's really only useful to legal theorists who are already deeply familiar with theory of discourse in contemporary and modern analytical philosophy.
It just goes in circles about the limitations of legal argumentation and how persuasion works instead of helping the reader/student, I have read other theorists who summarize and better explain Alexy's ideas.
Livro importante no debate da Teoria da Argumentação Jurídica, ainda que não seja tão razoável concordar com algumas das premissas do discurso propostas pelo autor.