ANALYSIS OF
DIS/AGREEMENT –
with particular reference to
Law and Legal Theory
by
SVEIN ENG
Professor of the Philosophy of Law,
University of Oslo
KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
DORDRECHT / BOSTON / LONDON
A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN 1-4020-1490-2
Published by Kluwer Academic Publishers,
P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Sold and distributed in North, Central and South America
by Kluwer Academic Publishers,
101 Philip Drive, Norwell, MA 02061, U.S.A.
In all other countries, sold and distributed
by Kluwer Academic Publishers,
P.O. Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Printed on acid-free paper
All Rights Reserved
© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers
No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording
or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception
of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered
and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
Printed in the Netherlands.
Contents
An asterisk after an item means that the section concerned is introduced with a
table of contents of its own
Preface to the English edition .........................................................................
Preface to the Norwegian edition....................................................................
Some symbols and conventions used in the text ..............................................
I
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
INTRODUCTION
First formulation of major aims and main threads.....................................
Propositions about what something is .......................................................
Fundamental proposition-types and ambiguities .......................................
A critically reflexive mode of questioning as a remedy.
– Language users’ implementation of a relatively well-delimited
critically reflexive form: the fundamental types of proposition with
further nuancing and combinations. – The existence level of the
critically reflexive form: the aspect of discussion and decision in
language and argumentation ......................................................................
Survey. Guidance for the reader ................................................................
5.1. Survey of the content of the work. The generality
of the critically reflexive form ..........................................................
5.2. Guidance for the reader with a view to law and legal theory.
The fundamental significance of the critically reflexive
form for lawyers’ power of judgement .............................................
The status of the present work’s own propositions.
The independence of the critically reflexive form.....................................
The shadow existence, in theoretical respects, of the critically
reflexive form. The value of the present work...........................................
Summary of the main aim of the present work..........................................
xi
vii
ix
xx
3
5
7
9
13
13
15
18
22
24
CONTENTS
II SOME FUNDAMENTAL TYPES OF PROPOSITION
ABOUT WHAT SOMETHING IS
A SURVEY ...................................................................................................
1. Introduction................................................................................................
2. Definitions; analytically un/true propositions; characterisations.
Possibility and desirability of distinguishing. – “What is meaning?” .......
3. The structuring function and naming function of definitions ....................
4. Specification of connotation and specification of denotation....................
5. Descriptive propositions; normative propositions; fusions.
In particular on the broad meaning of the term “normative proposition” .
6. The distinctions between the types of proposition lie by definition
on the level of meaning, in contrast to the level of language.
The way the word “meaning” etc. is used in what follows........................
7. Summary of fundamental types of proposition about what
something is. The main emphasis of the present work ..............................
8. Non-empirical propositions .......................................................................
B DEFINITIONS .........................................................................................
1. Why definition theory?* ............................................................................
2. Introductory remarks on my concept of ‘definition’ .................................
2.1. Formed out of the desire for insight into analysis and
argumentation occurring in fact and formulated in everyday
language: including law and legal theory* .......................................
2.2. Contrast: Normative cognition interests in philosophy and logic ....
2.3. The unity and the diversity in the concept. Terminology .................
3. Modality of definitions I: Descriptivity and normativity...........................
3.1. Introduction. Modality and propositional content ............................
3.2. Descriptive definitions......................................................................
3.2.1. Definition and types ..............................................................
3.2.2. The presupposed concept of ‘concept’. Condition concept.
Factor concept; especially on family resemblance.
Consequences for the method of definition*.........................
3.3. Normative definitions .......................................................................
3.3.1. Stipulated normative definitions* .........................................
3.3.2. Custom-based normative definitions*...................................
3.3.3. Hybrid forms of and interplay between stipulations
and customs* .........................................................................
3.3.4. Normative-traditional and normative-innovative
definitions ..............................................................................
xii
27
27
28
38
40
42
50
53
55
56
56
62
62
66
72
76
76
82
82
83
103
104
110
114
119
CONTENTS
3.3.5. Normative definitions and family resemblance.....................
3.3.6. Statutory definitions* ............................................................
3.4. The distinction dimensions in what follows (sections 4–6)
are (also) means for stating more precisely the area of application
of the distinction between descriptivity and normativity in
the case of definitions .......................................................................
4. The propositional content of definitions: What is being defined...............
4.1. The structuring function of definitions. More on
the presupposed concept of ‘concept’*.............................................
4.2. The naming function of definitions* ................................................
4.3. The significance of the distinction between the structuring
function and the naming function of definitions...............................
4.3.1. Whether, and if so to what extent, definitions have
the one, the other or both functions. Interplay ......................
4.3.2. Whether the functions are exercised descriptively
or normatively .......................................................................
4.3.3. Whether the functions are exercised normativetraditionally or normative-innovatively. Criteria for
“the same definition question”* ............................................
4.3.4. Other connections in which the distinction is
of significance .......................................................................
4.4. The significance of definitions’ mode of formulation ......................
4.4.1. Two main modes: Word terminology and concept
terminology. Survey of the significance of
the mode of formulation ........................................................
4.4.2. The modes of formulation are in practice often used
to express the same definition-functional content .................
4.4.3. Concept terminology gives the impression of greater
unity and objectivity than word terminology ........................
4.4.4. Concept terminology is more difficult to put to
the test than word terminology ..............................................
5. Means of structuring I................................................................................
5.1. Connotation specification .................................................................
5.2. Denotation specification* .................................................................
5.3. Combination......................................................................................
5.4. The role of the means in relation to one another
in actually occurring definition activity............................................
5.4.1. The definition product* .........................................................
5.4.2. In particular on the role of denotation specifications
in lawyers’ definitions; “instance-type propositions”
and statutory definitions* ......................................................
xiii
120
121
125
126
126
145
161
161
162
163
171
171
171
173
176
178
179
179
182
193
195
196
200
CONTENTS
6.
7.
8.
9.
5.4.3. The psychological process prior to the definition
product. Subsequent linguistic practice.................................
5.5. Structuring via a more comprehensive language context .................
Means of structuring II: Means of specifying the connotation..................
6.1. Purely cognitive criteria or evaluation prescription*........................
6.2. Factors or conditions*.......................................................................
Normative definitions as means to influencing action;
“persuasive definitions” .............................................................................
7.1. Introduction.......................................................................................
7.2. Interplay between words, emotions and things.................................
7.3. Persuasive definitions .......................................................................
7.3.1. Definition and two main types* ............................................
7.3.2. Examples ...............................................................................
(1) “Legal/ Science” .............................................................
(2) “Norm” ...........................................................................
(3) “Meaning” ......................................................................
(4) “Law”, “right”, “rule of law” and
“legal safeguards” [Rechtssicherheit].............................
7.3.3. Some characteristic features of persuasive definitions..........
The modality of definitions II: Dimensions, degrees, fusion ....................
8.1. The distinction between descriptivity and normativity
can in the case of definitions relate to different dimensions ............
8.2. The strength of normative definitions; dimensions and degrees* ....
8.3. The distinction between descriptivity and normativity is
itself graduated: See section F on fusion of descriptive and
normative propositions .....................................................................
Taking a critically reflexive turn. The definition theory
applied to the definition theory ..................................................................
C CHARACTERISATIONS.......................................................................
1. Introduction; survey of topics concerning characterisations
that are discussed in this work ...................................................................
2. Non-empirical characterisations ................................................................
2.1. Descriptive* ......................................................................................
2.2. Normative .........................................................................................
2.3. “Essential definition”........................................................................
3. The strength of characterisations ...............................................................
3.1. The strength of descriptive characterisations*..................................
3.2. The strength of normative characterisations.....................................
xiv
217
219
222
222
229
239
239
240
244
244
249
249
256
260
260
260
265
265
266
267
268
270
270
272
272
277
278
281
281
286
CONTENTS
D
1.
2.
3.
4.
ANALYTICALLY UN/TRUE PROPOSITIONS.................................
Introduction................................................................................................
The boundary with definitions...................................................................
The boundary with characterisations .........................................................
Excursus on terminology used of analytically un/true propositions..........
287
287
288
289
291
E SEPARATING .........................................................................................
1. Introduction................................................................................................
1.1. Why is it, in addition to the discussion above, necessary
to discuss how one decides which type of proposition one
is confronted with in the individual instance? ..................................
1.2. The status of, the main threads in and the purposes
of the further discussion....................................................................
2. How does one decide which proposition type one is confronted
with in the individual instance? .................................................................
2.1. Meaning according to widespread linguistic practice,
especially according to custom-based normative definitions
(“objective interpretation/ meaning”) ...............................................
2.1.1. The concept ...........................................................................
2.1.2. Some features of custom-based definitions that
make possible difference and interplay between
objective meaning and subjective meaning...........................
2.2. Sender’s meaning or a particular person’s understanding
(“subjective interpretation/ meaning”) .............................................
2.2.1. The concept ...........................................................................
2.2.2. May coincide with, innovate, supplement, make
more precise, or break with objective meaning.....................
2.2.3. May be actual or hypothetical. In particular on
the use of the hypothetical variant*.......................................
2.2.4. May be sought through the language user’s
propositions about what he means himself or
through the language user’s behaviour. In particular
concerning reaction to phenomena that do not have
the property the proposition formulation specifies, as
a criterion of proposition type* .............................................
2.2.5. In what relations and in what sense is subjective
meaning “psychological”? Similarity with and
difference from objective meaning. In particular on
definiteness of intention ........................................................
2.3. Particular problems as a result of “flight from
the normative proposition” ...............................................................
293
293
xv
293
294
296
296
296
297
299
299
300
300
303
308
310
CONTENTS
F FUSION OF DESCRIPTIVE AND NORMATIVE
PROPOSITIONS. THE CONCEPTS OF ‘DESCRIPTIVE
PROPOSITION’ AND ‘NORMATIVE PROPOSITION’
AS CONCEPTS OF DEGREE ...............................................................
1. Introductory remarks on my concept of ‘fusion’. Terminology ................
2. Lawyers’ propositions de lege lata as the paradigm case ..........................
2.1. Fused modality in connection with a general descriptive
component: “What opinion other lawyers will probably hold”*......
2.2. Drawing the boundary with descriptive propositions about
particular sources-of-law facts and “wishful thinking” in
the genesis of such propositions .......................................................
2.3. The perspective of “the generalised lawyer” ....................................
3. More on the concept of ‘fusion’ and its consequences for
the distinction between descriptive and normative propositions ...............
3.1. The concepts of ‘descriptive proposition’ and ‘normative
proposition’ as concepts of degree....................................................
3.2. Contrasting of fusion with some other phenomena ..........................
3.2.1. Drawing the boundary with the graduated distinction
between normative-traditional and normative-innovative
propositions ...........................................................................
3.2.2. Drawing the boundary with evaluation prescription
in the connotations of concepts and, as the case
may be, evaluation-free language attire* ..............................
3.2.3. Drawing the boundary with persuasive definitions ...............
3.2.4. Drawing the boundary with indeterminacy ...........................
3.2.5. Drawing the boundary with lack of knowledge on
the part of the recipient..........................................................
3.2.6. Drawing boundaries with structures in language, morals
and the relationship between parents and children................
4. Forms of expression, within the framework of lawyers’
language and argumentation de lege lata ...................................................
4.1. Not direct expression through individual words, but indirect
showing through patterns of argumentation .....................................
4.2. Independent of forms of expression of evaluation prescription .......
312
312
316
317
325
327
329
329
332
332
334
344
344
346
347
349
349
350
G NO CORRESPONDING FUSION OF DEFINITIONS
AND CHARACTERISATIONS............................................................. 352
1. A difference in the use of the ‘descriptive proposition–normative
proposition’ dimension and the ‘definition–characterisation’
dimension................................................................................................... 352
xvi
CONTENTS
2. The relationship between the present work and Quine’s critique of
distinctions that build on a boundary between linguistic meaning
and other sources of knowledge*............................................................... 354
H INTERPLAY ............................................................................................ 367
III TOPICS FROM THE ASSESSMENT OF TENABILITY
1. Introduction................................................................................................
2. Criteria that are used in the setting up of and choice between
normative definitions .................................................................................
2.1. Point of departure: A more complex evaluation than in
the case of descriptive definitions. Aim: A mapping of
certain general features of the motive situation ................................
2.2. The structuring..................................................................................
2.2.1. (Formal) logical criteria.........................................................
2.2.2. Operationalisability* .............................................................
2.2.3. References to “expediency”, “fruitfulness”, “the purpose”,
or the like. The necessity for further specifications ..............
2.2.4. Cognition ...............................................................................
2.2.5. Influencing action..................................................................
2.2.6. Aesthetic and heuristic considerations* ................................
2.2.7. Content of structuring and way of structuring.......................
2.3. The naming .......................................................................................
2.4. The coupling of area and name.........................................................
2.4.1. Heuristic considerations ........................................................
2.4.2. Concealed action influencing ................................................
2.5. Limits to the motivational weight of the abovementioned considerations: Custom. Chance.....................................
2.5.1. The content of the structuring and of the naming .................
2.5.2. The way of defining...............................................................
2.5.3. The ways in which custom works .........................................
3. Criteria that are used in the setting up of and choice between
descriptive characterisations ......................................................................
3.1. The topic. Point of departure: The truth criterion.
“Thou shalt not lie!” .........................................................................
3.2. Normative propositions that set true characterisations aside or
increase the probability of untrue characterisations .........................
3.2.1. Everyday life .........................................................................
3.2.2. Politics ...................................................................................
xvii
371
373
373
374
374
378
388
391
395
397
408
409
410
410
415
418
418
419
419
421
421
423
423
424
CONTENTS
3.2.3. Law ........................................................................................ 426
3.2.4. Science................................................................................... 432
4. Lawyers’ propositions de lege lata: a complex tenability assessment....... 436
IV SOME FORMS OF LANGUAGE AND ARGUMENTATION
THAT OFTEN MAKE IT UNCLEAR WHICH TYPE OF
PROPOSITION ONE IS CONFRONTED WITH;
IN PARTICULAR ON THE FLIGHT FROM
THE NORMATIVE PROPOSITION
1. Survey ........................................................................................................
2. Use of polysemous modes of expression in the case of evaluations
and choices.................................................................................................
2.1. The concept. The topic: A factual tendency in the case of
evaluations and choices: use of modes of expression that are
polysemous between the descriptive, logical and normative............
2.2. Some modes of expression that are systematically polysemous
between the descriptive, logical and normative*..............................
3. Use of descriptive or logical modes of expression in the case of
evaluations and choices .............................................................................
3.1. The concept. The topic: A factual tendency in the case of
evaluations and choices: use of descriptive or logical
modes of expression..........................................................................
3.2. Patterns from language and argumentation more generally* ...........
3.3. Patterns more specific to lawyers’ language and
argumentation de lege lata ................................................................
3.3.1. The pervasive descriptive way of expressing oneself* .........
3.3.2. On principle terminology in particular ..................................
(1) Introduction ....................................................................
(2) Positive law aspects ........................................................
(3) “Natural law” aspects* ...................................................
(4) Unity: hiding evaluations and choices............................
3.3.3. On linking-terms in particular ...............................................
3.3.4. Lawyers’ language and argumentation de lege lata as
a double abstraction: From the legal-consequence side of
linking-terms. And from evaluations and choices.................
xviii
443
444
444
446
458
458
460
464
464
475
475
476
478
483
483
486
CONTENTS
V RECONSTRUCTION AND REDEFINITION:
A DISTINCT AND WIDESPREAD COMBINATION
OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITION TYPES
1. ‘Reconstruction and redefinition’ – a concept of degree...........................
1.1. Definition* ........................................................................................
1.2. The purpose of my conceptualisation: mapping (describing)
what one dis/agrees about .................................................................
2. Propositions about what legal phenomena are, interpreted as
reconstructions and redefinitions ...............................................................
2.1. Introduction.......................................................................................
2.2. “Løfte” [promise]; “Viljeserklæring” [declaration of intent];
“Rettshandel” [juristic act]................................................................
2.3. “Legalitetsprinsippet” [the principle of legality] ..............................
2.4. “The constructed ratio decidendi of the judgment” ..........................
2.5. “Law”................................................................................................
2.6. “Valid law” .......................................................................................
3. Comparison with some related concepts of modes of analysis .................
3.1. Introduction.......................................................................................
3.2. Næss: ‘Real definition’* ...................................................................
3.3. Carnap...............................................................................................
3.3.1. ‘Explication’* ........................................................................
3.3.2. ‘Rational reconstruction’* .....................................................
3.3.3. Others’ use of Carnap’s terms ...............................................
3.4. Goodman, Rawls: ‘Reflective equilibrium’*....................................
3.5. The graduated transitions to significant differences .........................
4. Tenability assessment and causal perspective ...........................................
4.1. The assessment of tenability; a function of the unity of
several sets of criteria .......................................................................
4.2. Causal perspective; some factors that may contribute to explaining
tendencies in the direction of reconstructions and redefinitions ......
4.2.1. Explanation of social phenomena versus explanation
of natural phenomena ............................................................
4.2.2. Normatively regulated denotation* .......................................
5. A more general structure............................................................................
I↔V
491
491
498
499
499
499
501
502
509
511
513
513
514
518
518
523
529
532
536
539
539
540
540
541
546
CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 549
Literature referred to.................................................................................... 557
Index of authors ............................................................................................. 592
Index of subjects ............................................................................................ 599
xix