What is LAW and what ought to be LAW
Many jurists and legal theorists, despite their differences in some ways, agree on the definition of law, or legal thinking, in terms of laws. Legalism, according to Shklar, is an ethical attitude that views moral behaviour as a matter of observing laws and moral relationships as a set of duties and rights defined by rules. The law, according to Hart, is the union of primary and secondary laws, and although it does not determine the entirety of a legal structure, it is at its heart.
In one aspect our whole legal system represents a complex of rules designed to rescue man from the blind play of chance and to put him safely on the road to purposeful and creative activity
These definitions are among the meanings used in the laws, but they are not rules in and of themselves, and their interpretation is formally independent of the rules in which they are contained. For example, the terms “spouse” and “marriage” in inheritance law can mean somewhat different things than “spouse” in tax law, and both may vary from “spouse” in immigration law. These merely categorical divisions, as opposed to legal codes, seem to be deserving of attention in their own right. They are often the connection between extralegally rendered cognitive declarations and the application of legal laws to real cases or incidents in legal reasoning. They make it possible in legal logic to switch from cognitive judgments to normative implications without referencing principles, and they aid in obtaining litigating lawyers’ viewpoints.
Consider the role of classificatory types in a plaintiff’s lawsuit against a defendant to see how important they are in legal reasoning. The ‘facts’ in a case are the first component of a civil suit, which means what happened, certain circumstances occurred, which lead to a disagreement, which resulted in a lawsuit. The legal definitions in which such facts may be subsumed are the second component.
The legal categories are rooted in the third group, which is the code of law. The fourth and final component is a court’s decision on the outcome of the case in question. At the most basic form, a plaintiff’s case against a criminal is made up of a series of claims that requires at least these four measures.
Legal Style of Thought
Legally applicable evidence are those that influence how the circumstances in question are classified under one or more legal terms. Courts and litigating attorneys must determine what occurred in a lawsuit. Factual statements in everyday English, on the other hand, are just the first link in a chain of claims.
The details are then classified into legal categories in the second stage. At this point, lawyers and judges use a terminology specific to the law, such as bid, approval, consideration, incompetence, agents, and so on, or they use everyday phrases like wife, husband, and employee, which have become legal concepts with technical implications in the law. There are certain doubts regarding the case’s reality.
They aren’t, though, merely abstract inquiries. They are normative in nature. They can’t be replied correctly by someone who doesn’t know the rules, and they can’t be answered in plain English or in terms that have no bearing on the case’s proper legal result.
The cognitive categories of the law, which describe the truth in legal terminology and terms that are used in the vocabulary of the laws, come into play in the legal style of thinking.
Students of legal thought can slur over this critical, intervening move, and thereby lack a distinguishing feature of legal, as opposed to ideological thinking, due to the one-sided focus on systems of law as systems of laws. It is important to differentiate between classifying specific scenarios as examples in generic terminology and subjecting specific circumstances to general laws.
The basic terms do not include laws in and of themselves. They are semantic categories that are rooted in rules, but whose sense is independent of the rules. It is only after the non-normative classification that specific cases are brought under general guidelines. This formulation is fruitful for academic studies on litigation systems because it allows for a more detailed identification of the essence of the legal problems in the vast majority of the suits in which there are few legal issues at all than would otherwise be feasible.
Facts are moved to their normative consequences in the legal style of thinking without referencing any meaning principles. Legislators, judges, and litigants’ principles can all play a role in determining the desired outcome. Values can influence the drafting of legislation or the formulation of rules by the courts. It is possible to proceed from the declaration of facts to their normative ramifications without referencing principles as distinct from norms until the rules have been established.