KINDS OF REASONS

What are Reasons?

• Jaap Hage defines them as “facts” that are “relevant to other facts,” with the latter being
“conclusions” of the former facts.
• Three kinds of prominent reasons deal with the creation of new legal rules – decisive reasons,
contributive reasons and abstract reasons
Decisive reasons
• Concrete Reasons. Will determine conclusions by themselves.
• If the “decisive reason for a conclusion obtains, then the conclusion also obtains”
• Simply put: Lavinia has no food in her home except for three apples and two bananas. This fact
is the decisive reason for the conclusion that Lavinia has five fruits. In this situation, there can be
no other conclusion. There will be no grey area, no nuanced discussion. It is an open and shut case
Contributive reasons
• While contributive reasons are also concrete, they will not, of their own, result in a single
conclusion.
• Contributive reasons can be in favour of, or against, a particular legal rule. The “conclusion”
derived will be by weighing all these reasons against each other.
• Think of it as considering the pros and cons before arriving at a conclusion.
• These reasons can be scientific, sociological, philosophical, economic, political, historical,
religious, anthropological, psychological, or cultural. They can be rooted in idealism or
pragmatism.
How contributive reasons shape legal rules
• The laws on private defence:
 Molly wounds Bellatrix lethally, causing her to die on the spot.  Reason that contributes
against the lawfulness of Molly’s actions.
 Molly wounds Bellatrix to stop Bellatrix from killing her daughter, Ginny. Reason that
contributes towards the lawfulness of Molly’s actions.
 In conclusion, is what Molly did lawful or unlawful?
 Would the circumstances be different if Bellatrix was not equipped with a weapon that could kill
Ginny and Molly simply overreacted?
Inequality among contributive reasons-
• Not all contributive reasons are created equal.
• Many may differ on the basis of different points of view.
• Example:
 Fred and George steal a valuable map from Mr Filch’s office. → Fred and George should be
punished for theft.
 Fred and George are minors. → Fred and George should not be punished for theft.
 The second reason, while valid, does not completely nullify the first one.
 In this situation, the two reasons will intersect to create a new legal rule – one surrounding the
punishment of children in conflict with law.
Abstract Reasons
• If a particular fact leads to one conclusion, then similar facts should lead to similar conclusions.
• “This phenomenon, that concrete reasons are instantiations of more abstract ones, has become
known, especially in ethical theory, as the universalizability of reasons.”
• Note: Instantiation = instance. As in a larger phenomenon/trend is “represented” by a particular
instance.
• Let us take the example of an abstract state of affairs. X feels dehydrated so X will drink water.
We created this abstract state of affairs based on similar “instantiations” whereby we see people
who feel dehydrated drink water. For example, on Monday, Lady Susan was feeling dehydrated.
She drank water. On Wednesday, Rohini was feeling dehydrated. She drank water. These are
“concrete states of affairs”.
Abstract Reasons vis-à-vis Contributive and Decisive Reasons
• Abstract reasons comprise of both the decisive kind as well as the contributive kind.
• For example, if a person is on life support and is kept alive artificially, then pulling the plug
would decisively cause their death.