Reasoning by Analogy - A Study on Analogy-Based Arguments in Law

Abstract: This doctoral dissertation is a study on analogy-based arguments in law. Its overarching aim is to clarify reasoning by analogy in law. A model is proposed for analyzing and assessing arguments from analogy in law. The dissertation shows how analogy-based arguments in law proceed, what form they can be given and separates different steps involved in assessing whether such arguments establish the acceptability of their conclusions. It also structures the comparison of cases with respect to dimensional properties of which cases may have more or less. What reason can be given for preferring different ways of arguing from analogy in law is examined. Other central issues dealt with in the dissertation are: the relation of reasoning by analogy to past mistakes, whether arguments from analogy must be rule-based in order to be compelling, different uses of arguments from analogy in law, and the role of formal justice in normative discourse. Cases from several legal systems and areas of law exemplify reasoning by analogy, showing that this type of reasoning is not unique to a particular legal system or a particular field of law. Even though the dissertation focuses on reasoning by analogy within a legal context, much said in the dissertation of analogy-based arguments is not limited to a legal context and may thus be useful for other fields than law.