On some assumptions in the dogmatic study of tax law

Szymon Obuchowski

Abstract

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 , e-ISSN 2299-6834, (0 pkt)
Issue year2018
Vol1
No9
Pages81-96
Publication size in sheets1
Keywords in EnglishIs-ought problem, enthymematic reasoning, methodology of tax law dogmatics
DOIDOI:10.4467/22996834FLR.18.006.9046
URL http://www.ejournals.eu/FLR/2018/Issue-1/art/12107/
Languageen angielski
LicenseJournal (articles only); published final; Uznanie Autorstwa - Użycie Niekomercyjne - Bez utworów zależnych (CC-BY-NC-ND); with publication
Score (nominal)0
ScoreMinisterial score = 0.0, 24-10-2018, ArticleFromJournal
Ministerial score (2013-2016) = 0.0, 24-10-2018, ArticleFromJournal - czasopismo zagraniczne spoza list
Citation count*
Cite
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.
Back