LOGIC AND LAW – THE CONJOINED TWINS

By Olusegun Abayomi Esq., T. P. Oladipupo Esq., T. O. Abayomi (Mrs.) and Feranmi Agunbiade.

29th November, 2023

Abstract 

Like the Siamese twins, logic and law are inseparable. Hence, the popular saying; “good legal argument or decision is never deficient of logic and reason”. Therefore, every legal analysis must begin at the point of reason, continue along a path of logic and at a fundamental fair conclusion to become good law. It is trite to say that logic and law have form part and parcel of many disciplines flowing from arts, education, social-sciences and pure sciences. However, logic being the art of reasoning and drawing inferences without the intervention of emotion shall be the major focus of this article.

Introduction

How is logic and law conjoined?

When we define law, we observe, in principle, the existence of a repertoire of rules and laws which, in turn, must be applied in certain cases. This, in order to regulate human behavior in society, guaranteeing the order of it, and in this way, an orderly and dignified life for all its members.

There is, then, in law, the constant exercise of logic. This allows people to make use of all legal resources in a rational way, being able to reach a coherent and effective conclusion regarding the use of the laws themselves. Logic represents an organizing principle for law, which facilitates the application of laws and norms to an entire society by men themselves. Remember that in law there are institutions that will be responsible for operating as controllers, which requires, in this sense, the use of logic. However, it is not, ultimately, these institutions that regulate essentially. It’s the logic, the one that is responsible for regulating the way in which we interpret these laws and execute them.

Analysis of logic

The term “logic” just like law is traceable to the Greek word “Logos” which is sometimes construed as “discourse” “reason”. There are many definitions of logic as propounded by various Logicians, among which includes Dan Reuben Abel who writes that “Logic is motivated by the desire for greater clarity, precision, completeness, generality and ultility… there is no alternative to logic because logic uniquely serves the need to understand and cope with the word…”as . The major focus of logic is that, it is the laws of thought, the rules of right reasoning, the principles of valid argumentation and the process of drawing conclusion from evidence. It is apposite to state that logic has the tendency to lead us to truth. A very good example is the yoruba proverb- “Aje kelana, omo ku loni, tani o sai mope aje ana lo pa omoje”. Literally it means “a witch cried yesterday and the child died today, who doesn’t know it’s the witch that cried yesterday that killed the child”. In other words, there was a threat yesterday and tragedy struck today, it is logical to conclude that it’s the threat of yesterday that led to today’s tragedy. This takes us back to the law on circumstantial evidence which is indirect or ‘inferred’ evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that a specific fact exist.

However, when arriving at such inference, it is important to be guided by the following 3 major principles of logic, namely:

1. the Principle of identity – It is commonsensical/logical that a statement that is true is true, it cannot be false, e.g. if O. Abayomi and Associates is a good law firm, then it has good lawyers.

2. the principle of contradiction – any logical statement should not contradict itself e.g. the Polytechnic of Ibadan not polytechnic. It is obvious from the above example that anyone one who makes such expression may be described as an inconsistence and irrational thinker,because of the level of self-contradiction which makes his argument illogical.

3. the Principle of excluded middle – is found in the notion of contradictory opposites which is between being and nonbeing. For example, it is always true or false that O. Abayomi and Associates law firm’s building is fine. If the building actually exist, it is either fine or not. If it does not exist, it is false to say it is fine, and true to say it is not fine.

Objectives of Logic

As English is a tool of trade to lawyers, so is logichandy tool to all professionals, disciplines, and survival of the society at large as it widens thinking ability, develop critical thinking, evaluate sound argument, and guides one’s actions and thoughts towards drawing inference and deduction from an argument. 

Types of Arguments

Logic as a form of reasoning is generally divided into two basic types namely;

i. Deductive reasoning/argument: It is important to state here that if the deductive argument is valid, then its conclusion follows from the premises necessary. It is impossible for the premises to be true and to have a false conclusion if a deductive argument is valid.For example:

a. Major Premises: All lawyers in the law firm of O. Abayomi and Associates are diligent.

b. Minor Premises- Lawyer Paul is a Lawyer in O. Abayomi and Associates.

c. Conclusion – Lawyer Paul is diligent.

In deductive argument, the premises provide some grounds for the truth or its conclusion. Hence, the premises constitute conclusive evidence for theconclusion.

Inductive reasoning/ argument.

Inductive reasoning strategies are used to discover or induce general concept and general propositions based on observations of specific events. This type of argument stems from a generalization to a particularstatement, and the supporting reasons in this argument are technically called ‘PREMISES’. It is based on beliefs, doctrines, societal norms and values.

Both deductive reasoning and inductive argument are used in virtually everything that counts as thinking, for instance;

– Mathematicians solves algebra problems through making use of deductions from general problem-solving strategies and applying them to specific problems.

– Lawyers draw inference from judicial precedents merge same with present fact in arriving at present decisions.

– Engineers through inference and proposition determines the proportion of materials to be brought together to have durable construction.

– Historians through historical examples and figuring out what is common to them involves inducing concepts with common features and how they affects one another.

– Scientists in determining whether the results of a chemistry  experiment support, refute or expand on prior generalizations

– Students use methods of deductive reasoning to design an experiment, while they use inductive reasoning method to figure out what the data mean.

In nutshell, the more you know about verbal associations, concept, propositions, and cognitive strategies in logic and in subject matter areas, the more you will be able to think logically in any discipline of your choice.

Glossary of terms in logic

Syllogism: is a term in logic, coined by Aristotle to mean argument with two kind of premises and a conclusion. The Premises are classified into two namely: Major and Minor Premises. Syllogism is a form of deductive argument. It is made-up of three statements. e.g

All lawyers are members of ogboni fraternity.

Ayediloya is a Lawyer.

Ayediloya is a member of Ogboni fraternity.

Propositions: It is an expression that can either be true or false, but it is impossible for such an expression to be true and false at the same time. “The proposition and syllogism are categorical only in name and not because of their contrast with, for example the hypothetical.

Types of categorical propositions are:

Particular affirmative proposition (T Proposition): States that at least one member of one class is a member of another. e.g.

Some lawyers are Ogboni.

Some girls likes money.

The implication of these assertions are

(1) That at least one lawyer is a member of the Ogboni fraternity group.

(2) That at least one girl belongs to the class girls that likes money.

– Particular negative proposition: States that at leastone member of one class is exonerated or excluded from another. eg. Some Lawyers are not members of Ogboni fraternity.

Some girls don’t like money.

The implication is that at least a member of the groupis exonerated from the class of a named characteristic i.e. At least one lawyer is not a member of Ogboni.

Atleast one girl does not like money.

– Universal negative Proposition states members of one class are exeluded from another. e-g-

No Christians brothers are cultists

No muslim brothers are fanatics. These imply:

(I) No member of the class “Christian brothers” is a member of the class of ‘cultists’.

(2) No member of the class “Muslim brothers” is a member of the class of fanatics.

– Universal affirmative proposition states that all members of one class are included within another, to the extent that no one can be excluded e.g. All    Politicians are greedy 

All unionists are Aluta conscious.

What these examples suggest are:

every member of the class ‘Politicians’ is a member of the group of greed

every member of the class ‘activists’ is a member of the group of Aluta Conscious

Facts: Facts are actual truths, they are objective in nature and any statement that is true is a fact. Facts are truth functional statement capable of being trueor false. Fact exists independently of human beings individual emotions, biases, attitudes, prejudices, feelings and personal idiosyncrasies.

A fact is verifiable, for any statement to be labelled or described as a fact, it must exhibit the following qualities:

– Verifiability: For a statement to be described as a fact. (True or False) must be subjected to a proof. We must be able to verify such a statement. The verification validates the claims of a statement as a fact, the verification can be done either directly or indirectly. e.g. To say that the law office is open, one needs to the law building and see if you can enter, and if you can indeed enter, then it will be a fact that surely thelaw office is open. 

– Truth: Any fact statement should be true to the extent that it cannot be falsified by any counter Claim(s) e.g. the Polytechnic of Ibadan is in Sango, Ibadan, this is a fact, if truly the Polytechnic of Ibadan is not in Wuse, Abuja, butif otherwise it cannot be described as a fact. After proper scrutiny observation or an experience, one can ascertain that a statement isa fact or not. If one says that 10% of the students failed a particular course, it only becomes a fact after the statistical data and analysis had beendone to verify the claims or assertion

– Relevance: The statement of fact is one for which explanation can be offered, and such explanation should be relevant to the argument on ground.

– Universal acceptability: If a statement is truly a fact, it should be acceptable globally, that is throughout the whole world. It should not be a statement that could be faulted in any quarters from this fact, statement, and hypothesis or theory can be formulated. E.g.All grown-up females are women.

– Logical Principles: For any statement to qualify as a fact, it must follow the principles of logic as earlier pointed out or discussed i.e. a fact statement will never contradicts itself.

– Opinions: are subjective in nature, opinions are not truth functional sentences which express the individual idiosyncrasies, biases, prejudices,emotions and feelings. It can also be described as a personal subjective judgement based on what one believes to be true or false. As earlier pointed out that opinions are subjective in nature, this subjectivity makes an opinion unverifiable. Individual perceptions of differentsituations are not the same, hence individual opinions can never be the same e.g. “A” can say that all lawyers are Liars while “B” can say that all Lawyers are honest “A” and “B” are actually expressing their opinions as regards their personal view of lawyers depending on the type lawyer in which individual had encounter with.A good example is the definition of law through the illustrations by 4 blind men who were asked to go and touch an elephant and consequently asked describe what an elephant looks like; 

The “1st” blind man who all he felt and touched was the leg, described an elephant as round pole.

The 2nd who felt and touched the ears, described elephant as a very flat animal, and looks more like hand fan

The 3rd that touched and felt just the trunk described an elephant as a very long, flexible and muscular animal.

It is obvious from the description of an elephant given by the 4 blind men, that all of them gave different opinions about what an elephant looks like.This shows that opinion is individualistic and highly subjective. In Logic, we do argue that an argument should be based on facts and the premises for such an argument to be valid or sound must not be premised on mere opinion or assumption. An argument based on mere opinions as its base is a bad argument and mostly unreliable. Bad argument is a product of erroneous reasoning which is described as fallacies.

Inference: After a generalization or statement is made, inference assists us to arrive at a logical conclusion, hence, it serves as the chain or link between generalization and conclusion. It is important to point out at this juncture that a wrong inference from generalization brings illogical conclusion. Whenever we interpret the meaning of “truth” we are drawing inferences.

Conclusion: is usually drawn based on the available facts and evidences which serve as Premise. To logicians, the conclusion is logical so far it is drawn from other premises or propositions of the arguments. The conclusion can be specific.

Argumentation: A process of reasoning in which a coherent series of facts and judgment is arranged to establish a (logical) conclusion. What arguments do is to establish relationship between assertions e.g. I need more second to survive. Therefore, Ineed to double my efforts in my work.

Assumption: This best described as an opinion taken to be true, even though one is not sure of it. It is individualistic and has no valid proof. When a decision is based on an assumption, there is every likelihood that it produces negative result. For an argument to be valid, assumption should be kept atthe minimum e.g Tope and Samson are flat mates and classmates, so Samson must be responsible for impregnating Tope, this may be an assumption, if on the other hand, Tope was impregnated by her boyfriend, Shina who only visit her once in 2 months the assumption that Samson must have impregnated Tope will be proved wrong.

Fallacies: An incorrect or false argument that is based on weak, flawed, illogical, nonsensical, unsound argument, claim or assertion. Example of fallacious statement;

– the notion that “camera never lies” is a fallacy.

– that “All German Shepherds are dogs; 

therefore, all dogs are German Shepherds” is fallacious.

Fallacy may be formal and informal.

Formal fallacies: These are related to both deductive and inductive invalidity and inductive improbability. Formal fallacies result from hasty generalization and contradiction.

Informal fallacies: These can be described as mere emotional appeals and hot fallacies in real sense of it. The argument is fallacious. If it is such that though its premises provide no justification for the conclusion.

They are named “informal fallacies” because they arise among informal as opposed to formal argument.

Informal fallacies did not qualify for deduction or induction argument but best described as emotional appeals. Emotional appeals put forward as an argument by presenting evidence not germane to the issue at stake. 

– Generalization

It is a statement purely used in asserting or denying something. It implies an idea, proposition or position that forms argument which a logician sure toevaluate: Without generalization there would be nothing at the disposal of a logician to support or undermine arguments it is the first step that is taken before inference and conclusion follows.

The coexistence and significance of logic to law 

Logic is a formal science that is responsible for studying human thought, making analysis of the elements that compose it, and that, in such a way, make reasoning itself possible. Reasoning that allows man to access the truth of the facts, thus obtaining real knowledge.

With logic, human thought acquires an ordering character, which makes it possible to create coherent relationships between concepts and ideas, a character that has turned this branch of philosophy into an antecedent of multiple disciplines and sciences of our time.

Somewhere between strict formalist jurisprudence and utter disregard for logic and argumentative form, law and judicial practice truly find peace. Although all that is usually repeated by Justice Holmes is the concise remark quoted above, his jurisprudential writings, as well as his legal opinions, make it clear that it was never his intention to pretend that logic is not a central aspect of law or judicial decision-making. He, along with legal realists and other critics of legal formalism, have recognized that evaluation and the creation of arguments are at the heart of the lawyer`s judgment. Essentially, the field of law, and perhaps especially the practice of judicial decision-making, are exercises in practical thinking. There is certainly more to law than logic. However, the myriad of factors that contribute to good legal practice and fair judgment suggest that the „life of the law,” while not just logical, is a variety of activities, all of which use and depend on reason in specialized ways. The level of detail required when drafting contracts, wills, trusts and other legal documents is rational precision; The care that litigators must take in planning and strategy in deciding how to present their case is rational diligence; The written and oral reasoning required for the practice of appeal is obviously a rational ability; the talent expected of administrative judges to produce consistent findings of fact and legal conclusions is a rational talent; And the ability of trial and appellate judges to impartially and impartially separate the core reasoning from rhetorical and emotional chaff from adversarial representation in order to render legally justified judgments is a rational skill. There are good reasons to remain skeptical of overly rationalistic representations of law and judicial practice.

The web of historical doctrine, legal principles, and factual nuances that underlies every judicial decision is far too complicated to permit critical evaluation using a single method of evaluation, including the principles of logic. We are therefore rightly concerned when we recall the formalist visions of nineteenth-century jurists – visions that found the essence of jurisprudence in the logical derivation of conclusions necessarily required by predetermined legal principles. It is therefore interesting for law practitioners and students to have an understanding of the basic principles of logic that are regularly used in legal reasoning and judicial decision-making. This understanding requires, to a large extent, the ability to navigate the processes of inductive reasoning – the methods of analogy and inductive generalization – by which conclusions are drawn based on past experience and empirical observations. The common law approach to developing jurisprudence, as well as the general rule often referred to as the „rule of law” – that similar cases are decided immediately – are logically based on inductive reasoning. Since Justice Holmes asserted that „the life of law is not logical, but experience,” lawyers and judges in the United States have downplayed the importance of formal logic in understanding law and legal thought. Many jurists and practitioners feared that recognizing that logic is at the heart of law risked returning to the rationalist excesses of formalist jurisprudence that dominated nineteenth-century legal thought. It is, after all, against this formalist tradition that Holmes wrote. And it was in stark opposition to this tradition that members of the realist legal movement in America, as well as the free rights movement in Europe, directed much of their energies in the early twentieth century.

Conclusion

From the foregoing, it is not off point to contend that in as much as legal reasoning embraces inductive and analogical reasoning as it is a legal norm for lawyersto engage in analytically and precise and logical thinking is crux of good advocacy. And for the Judges, the process of been guided by the similarity between a case at hand and reliance on past cases (judicial precedents) decided by Higher Courts in making their submissions and writing of judgment respectively, is a clear manifestation of the coexistence between logic and law. We align with, and adopt in totality the postulation of Justice Holmes’ denial of the role in the field of law with his popular assertion that “the life of the law has not been logic” it has been experience.

Going forward, whether law or logic, both finds its root in “Philosophy” and Philosophy in its literal sense means, “love of wisdom.” Hence, only a fool will not embrace the law, and it is wisdom to abide by the law. Majority today, prefer laws since laws tell us what to do. Wisdom on the other hand, takes more effort, so we tend to shy away from learning how the world works and the reasons, benefit, and purposes of living wisely. Wisdom is the law, and it is wise for the society at large in pursuit of learning, reasoning, and day to day relationship or engagement, must do so in accordance with the provision of the law being guided by the latin maxim “ignoratia legis non excusat” meaning, ignorant of the law is not an excuse.

On a final note, we humbly leave all readers of this article with this question;

What can you do in life that can be separated from “LAW”?

REFERENCES

C.E. Alchourrón Logic of norms and logic ofnormative propositions Log. Anal., 12 (1969), pp.242-268

M.M. Ross, “A Basis for Legal Reasoning; Logic on Apeal.

R.O. Omosulu. Redeemer’s University Law Journal (RUNLAWJ Vol.1, pt. 1)

Ayodele Mike Oluranti and Jayeoba Olatoyese Samson, Esq., Functional Englush for Advanced Students: An electric Approach. 

C.E. Alchourrón Philosophical foundations ofdeontic logic and the logic of defeasible conditionalsJ.-J.C. Meyer, R.J. Wieringa (Eds.), Deontic Logic inComputer Science, North Holland, Amsterdam(1991), pp. 43-84

L.E. Allen Symbolic logic: a razor-edged tool fordrafting and interpreting legal documents Yale LawJ., 66 (1957), pp. 833-879

R. Alexy Theorie der juristischen Argumentation.Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als eine Theorieder juristischen Begründung Suhrkamp Verlag,Frankfurt am Main (1978)

V. Aleven Teaching case-based argumentationthrough a model and examples PhD dissertationUniversity of Pittsburgh (1997)