Arguments from Fairness and Extensive Interpretation in Greek Judicial Rhetoric

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Informal Logic Pub Date : 2024-03-15 DOI:10.22329/il.v44i1.8291

Miklós Könczöl

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Arguments from fairness as described in Aristotle’s Rhetoric are usually taken to aim at mitigating the strictness of the law or, in terms of procedure, to favour the defendant. This paper considers a more inclusive interpretation, that is, that arguments from fairness can work both ways. In the example given in the Rhetoric, arguments from fairness are directed at a restrictive interpretation of the text. That may not be necessary however. Likewise, fairness may speak for the claimant. Two examples may support this conclusion: a judicial speech by Hyperides, and the doctrine of issues appearing in Hellenistic school rhetoric.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

希腊司法修辞中的公平论证和广义解释

亚里士多德的《修辞学》中所描述的公平论证通常被认为旨在减轻法律的严格性，或者在程序方面有利于被告。本文考虑了一种更具包容性的解释，即公平论证可以双管齐下。在《修辞学》所举的例子中，公平论证针对的是对文本的限制性解释。然而，这可能并非必要。同样，公平也可以为主张者说话。有两个例子可以支持这一结论：希佩里德斯（Hyperides）的司法演说和希腊学派修辞学中出现的问题理论。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Informal Logic PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Informal Logic publishes articles that advance the dialectic in reasoning and argumentation theory and practice. Primary criteria for the acceptance of articles with a theoretical focus or interest are: (1) the article advances the dialectic or constitutes an interesting comment on it: it presents a cogent argument, objection, interpretation or position that is an advance in relation to the background of issues and controversies on the topic; or it casts the issue addressed in a new and worthwhile light; and (2) the article makes explicit reference to the pertinent literature on its topic, and it discharges the burden of proof imposed by that scholarship. Primary criteria for acceptance of articles devoted to the teaching of informal logic, critical thinking or argumentation include: originality; utility; timeliness; and evidence of the effectiveness of the methods, materials, technologies, etc., proposed. The standard criteria for scholarly publication—topical fit with the subjects covered in the journal; adequacy of coverage to the issue addressed; clarity, organization and literateness of the prose; conceptual clarity and cogency of argumentation—apply ceteris paribus to the selection of all articles, notes and reviews.

期刊最新文献

The Distinctiveness Problem of Analogical Arguments Generative AI and Argument Creativity Arguments from Fairness and Extensive Interpretation in Greek Judicial Rhetoric What Makes an Argument Strong? Une réaction à la critique depuis les marges épistémologiques