On some assumptions in the dogmatic study of tax law

Szymon Obuchowski


In the paper it is observed that methodology of traditional legal dogmatics omits the philosophical problem known as the “is−ought problem” or “Hume’s guillotine” according to which it is not logically possible to derive normative statements from descriptive statements and vice versa. Dogmatic arguments based on interpretation of a fragment of the system of law nevertheless contain comments and recommendations on empirical reality which that fragment of law regulates. It is shown in the paper that in doing so, their authors include enthymemes in their arguments, which are syllogisms with hidden premises. Since law belongs to the wider category of humanities, these enthymemes are of rhetorical kind, and this calls for increased caution in order to avoid theoretical fallacies which may result in misguided changes in the system of law.
Author Szymon Obuchowski (FLA / DFL)
Szymon Obuchowski,,
- Department of Financial Law
Journal seriesFinancial Law Review, ISSN 2299-6834, (0 pkt)
Issue year2018
No9 (1)
Publication size in sheets1
Keywords in EnglishIs-ought problem, enthymematic reasoning, methodology of tax law dogmatics
URL https://czasopisma.bg.ug.edu.pl/index.php/flr/article/view/1397/1102
Languageen angielski
LicenseRepository; published final; Uznanie Autorstwa - Użycie Niekomercyjne - Bez utworów zależnych (CC-BY-NC-ND); with publication
Obuchowski_Szymon_On_some_assumptions_2018.pdf 729.73 KB
Score (nominal)5
Score sourcejournalList
ScoreMinisterial score = 5.0, 09-03-2020, ArticleFromJournal
Citation count*
Additional fields
LicencjaUtwór jest udostępniany na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Share Share

Get link to the record

* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.
Are you sure?