Legal Reasoning in 08-09 (posted by Jessica)

As you have no doubt discovered by now, Legal Reasoning concepts can be hard to grasp concretely. Perhaps, like me, you find it valuable to consider concrete examples of reasoning at work to help you grasp the theory behind each one. This blog post will be some mental wanderings on the topic of legal reasoning, and how each theory applies in the political realm. I would love to hear your thoughts and comments.

How many types and theories of legal reasoning have been revealed in the election and in the agenda of our new President?

-Idealism-

Many voters considered him a promoter of idealism. His campaign line of “Change,” and his repeated remarks about changing America and making the country better, sounded idealistic. Quite a few starry-eyed constituents went to the polls believing they were helping usher in a utopian society. An ideal of everyone’s needs being met. The voters would have claimed they and the President held to idealism if they had been polled about theories. A goal outside of current reality is the ideal for which society must strive to become a utopia.

-Realism-

Realism is finding the ideal embedded in the current reality. On the new White House website you will find information about goals for the new administration. Bills will be promoted and measures enacted to support abortions of all kinds, the homosexual community will receive more special treatment, and more regulations will be added to businesses. Since some people in society have already engaged in the former activities and clamor for the later then these must be the new ideals. Presidential advisors probably would claim the administration holds to the theory of realism. Current thought dictates the ideals.

-Nominalism-

The news stations and announcers like to proclaim themselves as unbiased providers of information. Nominalism is the theory of stating what currently exists in society without comment, almost like cataloguing. Calling a candidate a long-awaited messiah or a great breath of fresh air does not qualify as nominalism. Nor does bashing the previous administration. While reporters might say they hold to the theory of nominalism, their opinionated comments probably show otherwise. “What IS is what is, and that is all there is, with no right or wrong about it” the true nominalist would say.

-Legal Positivism-

The last “ism” philosophy, is legal positivism. Some of the new White House agenda items conflict with the Bible. An adherent of legal positivism believes there are no laws except what men legislate. God’s laws would be ignored as not true law, while legislated human opinions would be held as the only standard of right and wrong. Would our new Congress and President fall into the category of legal positivists?

I would love to hear your thoughts in the comment section!

God bless as you take exams soon.