Analogical Arguments in Ethics and Law: A Defence of Deductivism

Fábio Perin Shecaira


The paper provides a qualified defence of Bruce Waller’s deductivist schema for a priori analogical arguments in ethics and law. One crucial qualification is that the schema represents analogical arguments as complexes composed of one deductive inference (hence “deductivism”) but also of one non-deductive subargument. Another important qualification is that the schema is informed by normative assumptions regarding the conditions that an analogical argument must satisfy in order for it to count as an optimal instance of its kind. Waller’s schema (in qualified form) is defended from criticisms formulated by Trudy Govier, Marcello Guarini and Lilian Bermejo-Luque.


a priori analogical arguments; Bruce Waller; deductivism; ethics; law

Full Text:



ISSN: 0824-2577