What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy and Law
Demystifying Legal Reasoning
Demystifying Legal Reasoning defends the proposition that there are no special forms of reasoning peculiar to law. Legal decision makers engage in the same modes of reasoning that all actors use in deciding what to do: open-ended moral reasoning, empirical reasoning, and deduction from authoritative rules. This book addresses common law reasoning when prior judicial decisions determine the law, and interpretation of texts. In both areas, the popular view that legal decision makers practice special forms of reasoning is false.
- GenresLaw
264 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2008
4 people are currently reading
19 people want to read
About the author
Larry Alexander
14 books2 followersLarry Alexander is Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of San Diego.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 20, 2026
The authors reject the mystification of legal reasoning and asserts that there are no special decision-making tools or legal training is necessary for judges to answer legal questions.
The authors offered an interesting analysis on the two plausible models of judicial reasoning as tools for common law judges:
1) Natural = moral reasoning through the method of reflective equilibrium + empirical reasoning;
2) Rule - deductive reasoning (from authoritative rules). (Not analogies and legal principles - general proposition that is consistent with existing legal materials, including the outcomes of past cases)
The reasons for overruling is particularly the most interesting part for me.
Examples of the reasoning as a thought process also made concepts easier to grasp.
They also distinguished concepts:
1. legal v. ordinary reasoning
2. legal principles (starting point of decision making; organic and not posited; reasons for decision that have weight when they come in conflict with other legal principles) v. rules (authoritative to effect outcome)
Analogical decision making based on factual similarity between cases is either:
1) Intuitive (undetectable constraint); or
2) Deductive (rules or principles that govern similarity).
I failed to appreciate the latter chapters pertaining to intention and interpretation of meanings.
The authors offered an interesting analysis on the two plausible models of judicial reasoning as tools for common law judges:
1) Natural = moral reasoning through the method of reflective equilibrium + empirical reasoning;
2) Rule - deductive reasoning (from authoritative rules). (Not analogies and legal principles - general proposition that is consistent with existing legal materials, including the outcomes of past cases)
The reasons for overruling is particularly the most interesting part for me.
Examples of the reasoning as a thought process also made concepts easier to grasp.
They also distinguished concepts:
1. legal v. ordinary reasoning
2. legal principles (starting point of decision making; organic and not posited; reasons for decision that have weight when they come in conflict with other legal principles) v. rules (authoritative to effect outcome)
Analogical decision making based on factual similarity between cases is either:
1) Intuitive (undetectable constraint); or
2) Deductive (rules or principles that govern similarity).
I failed to appreciate the latter chapters pertaining to intention and interpretation of meanings.
Displaying 1 of 1 review