LOGIC & CRITICAL THINKING Introduction

Zenny Rezania Dewantary, S.H., M.Hum

President University 2014
 WHAT’S THIS COURSE ABOUT?

 In Logic we are going to learn about symbolization and

evaluation on deductive argument using the truth table.
 Using truth table in an argument
 Categorical Syllogism and Stoik Syllogism
 Practicing on how to make a valid argument
 In Critical Thinking we are going to learn to distinguish
between logic and rhetoric.
 Also to distinguish between inductive and deductive
arguments
 Learning about ambiguity and common fallacies in an
argument
 Rechtsvinding
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING

 3 credits
 Class room policy:
- Students are required to be in class and to actively participate
in class instructions
- Toleration time for being late: 10 minutes (punishment
provided)
- No active cellphone and/or other electronic devices.
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING

 Evaluation:
Assignments Week due Percentage
Attendance Every week 15%
Mid-term Exam Week # 5 25%
Group assignments Week # 3 20%
Final Exam Week # 10 40%
Total ………………………… 100%

 University Grading Policy

A - 85-100
B - 70-84
C - 60-69
D - 55-59
E - <55
 WHAT WILL YOU LEARN?

 Week 1 – Introduction
 Week 2 – Logic and Legal Reasoning (1) (Definitions, logic
and legal reasoning in legal jurisprudence)
 Week 3 – Logic and Legal Reasoning (2) (Legal Dogmatic,
Legal Theories, Legal Philosophy)
 Week 4 – Syllogism (1) (truth table, deductive reasoning:
categorical syllogism, prepositions)
 Week 5 – Syllogism (2) (3 figures of categorical preposition)
 Week 6 – Syllogism (3) (ponens modus and tollens modus)
 Week 7 – Syllogism (4) (disjunctive syllogism and conjunctive
syllogism)
 Week 8 – Mid-Term exam
 WHAT WILL YOU LEARN?

 Week 9 – Legal Reasoning (1) (Deductive and Inductive

arguments; Inductive arguments: Generalization, analogy)
 Week 10 – Legal Reasoning (2) (Inductive arguments:
retroduction, testimony)
 Week 11 – The Families of Legal System
 Week 12 – Models of Legal Reasoning
 Week 13 – Rechtsvinding
 Week 14 - Fallacies
 WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

 To gain student’s logic and critical thinking capability by

providing an organized approach to the subject matter and
providing skill-building exercises.
 Critical thinking includes:
- Analyzing the meaning of information;
- Checking information for accuracy and completeness;
- Putting various pieces of information together
- Comprehending instructions and advice;
- Following directions;
- Solving problems;
- Judging what information is relevant to a particular issue and
whether that information is evidence for the truth of some
assertion;
- Questioning matters that do not make sense;
- Attempting to avoid mistakes in thinking (fallacies);
 WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

- Marshaling relevant information (evidence) when this is

needed to support some statement (constructing arguments);
- Judging whether purported evidence supports a conclusion
(recognizing and evaluating arguments); and
- Making decisions and plans in light of the best available
information or evidence.
 LOGIC AND LEGAL REASONING

 What is logic?
 How to use a logic?
 What is legal reasoning?
 How to use a legal reasoning?
 WHAT IS LOGIC

 Etimology: Logikos, Logos

 Meaning: something expressed, something said, as a result of
reasoning process.

Reasoning process formulated in vocabularies/dialogue

(human brain)

Expressed in languages
 WHAT IS LOGIC

 Logic is a science. Logic is a branch of philosophy.

 As a science, logic learns, constructs, expands, discusses
principles, formulas, procedures and criteria in reasoning and
concluding in order to get the rationally liable truth.
 As a science, logic has material and formal objects:
- Material object: human
- Formal object: intellectual mind
 DEFINITION

 What is definition?
 Definition is a universal representation of certain concept. By
having a such representation, we can distinguish one
concept/object and another.
 We can use logic to arrange a definition.
 E.g. “Undang-undang adalah dokumen tertulis yang memuat
hal-hal yang dilarang dan diperbolehkan untuk membentuk
suatu konsep yang mengatur kehidupan manusia
bermasyarakat”
 DEFINITION

 Two main aspects of Definition:

- Genera type/genre
- Dif ferensia characteristic

 Genera : gunting adalah alat pemotong yang memiliki dua sisi

tajam dihubungkan dengan satu poros.

 Dif ferensia : gunting adalah alat pemotong yang memiliki dua

sisi tajam dihubungkan dengan satu poros.
 DEFINITION

Undang-undang adalah dokumen tertulis yang memuat hal-hal

G
yang dilarang dan diperbolehkan untuk membentuk suatu
D
konsep yang mengatur kehidupan manusia bermasyarakat
 YOU CAN’T DEFINE..

 Concept that has no Genera

This type of concept may have a universal meaning, such as,
wujud; waktu; kondisi; etc.
 Concept that has no dif ferensia
This is simply cannot be defined, such as, senang; sedih; benci;
kesal; etc.

Find more words that cannot be defined

 REMEMBER THIS WHEN MAKING A
DEFINITION:
 Definition can’t have a broader and narrower connotation than
the term defined.
 E.g., Mobil adalah kendaraan yang bisa berjalan; Manusia
adalah makhluk hidup.
 Definition can’t contain the term defined.
 E.g., Bendera Merah Putih adalah Bendera Indonesia;
Kealfaan adalah kelalaian.
 Definition can’t be even more confusing.
 E.g., Hidup adalah berjalan di atas paku.
 Definition can’t take a negative form.
 E.g., Bagus adalah tidak jelek; Hitam adalah tidak putih.
 WHAT IS LEGAL REASONING?

 Law is a set of enforceable regulations to maintain the society

order.
 Legal reasoning is how such regulations are made. Then took
form as a regulation that we know today.
 LEGAL REASONING IN LEGAL
JURISPRUDENCE
 Legal jurisprudence is a sequence of logical activity.
 Legal jurisprudence is a result of logical activity.
 Legal jurisprudence itself is logical.
 Not only logical, it is also sociological, historical, and
systematical.

 Legal reasoning is a method to investigate the validity and the

truth in legal products.
 Legal reasoning is to determine if a thought is correct.
 USE LOGIC AND LEGAL REASONING TO
THIS:
 Pasal 362 KUHP
Barang siapa mengambil barang sesuatu, yang seluruhnya atau
sebagian kepunyaan orang lain, dengan maksud untuk dimiliki
secara melawan hukum, diancam karena pencurian, dengan
pidana penjara paling lama lima tahun atau pidana denda paling
banyak sembilan ratus rupiah.

 Pasal 1320 KUHPerdata

Supaya terjadi persetujuan yang sah, perlu dipenuhi empat syarat;
1 . kesepakatan mereka yang mengikatkan dirinya;
2. kecakapan untuk membuat suatu perikatan;
3. suatu pokok persoalan tertentu;
4. suatu sebab yang tidak terlarang
 USE LOGIC AND LEGAL REASONING TO
THIS:
 Pasal 31 (1) PP No. 61/2014 ttg Kesehatan Reproduksi
Tindakan aborsi hanya dapat dilakukan berdasarkan:
a. indikasi kedaruratan medis; atau
b. kehamilan akibat perkosaan

 Pasal 259 KUHAP

(1) Demi kepentingan hukum terhadap semua putusan yang
telah memperoleh kekuatan hukum tetap dari pengadilan lain
selain daripada Mahkamah Agung, dapat diajukan satu kali
permohonan kasasi oleh Jaksa Agung.
 LEGAL TERM

 Perintah
 Larangan
 Izin
 Dispensasi
LEGAL DISCIPLINES

Ius constituendum
Legal Philosophy

Legal Theory

Ius constitutum
Legal Dogmatic
 LEGAL DISCIPLINES

 Legal dogmatic: Studying the objective meaning of the current

regulations imposed by authoritative power in a certain legal
system (positive law)

 Legal theory: Explaining the concepts of law as shown in legal

resources and law enforcement

 Legal philosophy: Looking for the notion of law by reflecting it

from a general perspective not from that of a specific legal
system
 LAW AS IUS CONSTITUTUM AND IUS
CONSTITUENDUM
 Ius Constitutum means existing laws applied in certain legal
system. It is to answer the question what law is .

 Ius Constituendum means the ideal morality of law. It is to

answer the question what law ought to be.
 LEGAL STUDIES

 S1
 S2
 S3
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING

 Or a logical deduction is a process of reasoning using

premises to get a valid conclusion.
 If the premises are clear then the conclusion is valid.

 Deductive reasoning x inductive reasoning

 Inductive reasoning: the conclusion doesn’t have to be valid or
not valid. It is focusing on strong or weak conclusion ->
probability. E.g.:
Almost all murderer are imprisoned.
James is a murderer
James is most likely imprisoned.
 TRUTH TABLES

 A truth table is a tool that helps you analyze statements or

arguments in order to verify whether or not they are logical, or
true.
 There are five basic operations that you will utilize when
creating a truth table. These operations are the conjunction,
disjunction, negation, conditional, and bi -conditional. These
operations are also referred to as “and,” “or,” “not,” “if -then,”
and “if and only if.”
 LOGIC OPERATION OF TRUTH TABLES

 And Statements – These statements are true only when both p

and q are true
 E.g. “I will bring both a pen AND a pencil to the tutoring
session.” Only if I bring both is this true .
 LOGIC OPERATION OF TRUTH TABLES

 Or Statements – These statements are false only when both p

and q are false (follows the definition of “or ”.)
 E.g. “I will bring a pen OR a pencil to the tutoring
appointment.” Only if I don’t do either is this false
 LOGIC OPERATION OF TRUTH TABLES

 Not Statements – The “not” is simply the opposite or

complement of its original value.
 E.g.
p = “It is raining”
~p = “It is NOT raining”
 LOGIC OPERATION OF TRUTH TABLES

 If → Then Statements – These statements are false only when

p is true and q is false (because anything can follow from a
false premise.)
 E.g. “IF I am elected THEN taxes will go down .” Only if I am
elected and taxes don’t go down is this false.
 LOGIC OPERATION OF TRUTH TABLES

 If and Only If Statements – These statements are true only

when both p and q have the same truth values.
 E.g. “Taxes will go down IF AND ONLY IF I am elected .” Only if I
am elected and taxes go down, or I am not elected and taxes
do not go down is this true
 TRUTH TABLES FOR ARGUMENTS

 A logical argument is made up of two parts: the premises and

the conclusion. Arguments are usually written in the following
form:
If it is cold, then my motorcycle will not start.
My motorcycle started.
It is not cold.

 Arguments of this form can be turned into a logical

statement. First, assign variables to each premise and
conclusion.
If it is cold, then my motorcycle will not start.
My motorcycle started.
It is not cold.
 TRUTH TABLES FOR ARGUMENTS

“It is cold” = p
“It is not cold” = ~p
“My motorcycle will start” = q
“My motorcycle will not start” = ~ q

 You can now re-write the argument using logical operators.

Look for keywords like “if” and “not .”

If it is cold, then my motorcycle will not start. p -> ~q

My motorcycle started. q
It is not cold. ~p
 PRACTICE

 Use a truth table for arguments!

 SUBSUMPTION

 A legal solution of the case under consideration must fit the

law.
 The solution is a logical consequence of a set of premises.
 Establishment of this logical relation is called SUBSUMPTION.
 SYLLOGISM

 One kind of subsumption forms is syllogism.

 Two kinds of syllogism:
 Categorical syllogism
 Hypothetical syllogism
 CATEGORICAL STATEMENTS

 Statements about classes (or categories) of things or

situations.
 They assert that a particular class is either in part or as a
whole related to another class.
All M are P
Some S are M
Some S are P
 CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

 Premise 1:
 “All students of PU are happy”

 Premise 2:
 “Nadya is student of PU”

 Conclusion:
 “Nadya is happy”
 PREMISE 1 = PREMISE MAJOR

 The major premise is derived from a statutory provision,

contract, precedent, etc.
 Example:
Terhadap putusan pengadilan yang telah memperoleh kekuatan
hukum tetap, kecuali putusan bebas atau lepas dari segala
tuntutan hukum, terpidana atau ahli warisnya dapat
mengajukan permintaan peninjauan kembali kepada Mahkamah
Agung.
 PREMISE 2 = MINOR PREMISE

 A premise that contains a term that is going to be a subjek on

a conclusion
 Example:
Terhadap putusan pengadilan yang telah memperoleh kekuatan
hukum tetap, kecuali putusan bebas atau lepas dari segala
tuntutan hukum, terpidana atau ahli warisnya dapat
mengajukan permintaan peninjauan kembali kepada Mahkamah
Agung.
 Minor premises:
1. Jaksa bukan terpidana atau ahli waris
2. Putusan A adalah putusan bebas/lepas
3. Putusan A adalah putusan yang belum memperoleh
kekuatan hukum tetap
 ARTICLE 263 PARAGRAPH (1) KUHAP:

 Terhadap putusan pengadilan yang telah memperoleh

kekuatan hukum tetap, kecuali putusan bebas atau lepas dari
segala tuntutan hukum, terpidana atau ahli warisnya dapat
mengajukan permintaan peninjauan kembali kepada
Mahkamah Agung.
 Several major premises:
1. Sebagian putusan pengadilan berkekuatan hukum tetap
adalah objek pengajuan PK
2. Semua putusan bebas/lepas dari segala tuntutan hukum
adalah bukan objek pengajuan PK.
3. Semua terpidana atau ahli warisnya adalah pihak yang
berhak mengajukan PK.
4. Semua permintaan PK adalah upaya hukum yang diajukan
ke Mahkamah Agung
 ELEMENTS OF PROPOSITIONS

 Containing TERM and NO-TERM

 QUANTIFIER:
Numbering (universal, particular )

 Term SUBJECT (S):

Term who enters the term predicate

 PREPOSITION (Copula):
Is/are (adalah, adalah tidak, adalah bukan)

 Term PREDIKAT (P):

Term which is entered by the term Subject
 DISTRIBUTION OF PROPOSITIONS

 A, I -> Af firmo / Af firmative (“i af firm”)

 E, O -> Nego / Negasi / Negative (“i deny”)
PATTERN OF STANDARDIZED
PROPOSITION
 SYLLOGISM

 Modus ponens
 Modus tollens
 Disjunctive syllogism
 Conjunctive syllogism
 MODUS PONENS

 modus ponendo ponens, to af firm

 E.g.
p -> q
q
= p

~ p -> ~q
~q
=~p

p -> q
q -> r
= p -> r
 MODUS TOLLENS

 modus tollendo tollens, to deny

 E.g.
p -> q
~p
= ~q
 CONJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

 It has conjunctive proposition as its major. Showing

incompatibilities between two cases.
 E.g.

You can’t be a woman and a man at the same time.

You are not woman.
Therefore, you are a man
 DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

 It has disjunctive proposition for its major. It is giving

alternatives.
PvQ
~P
Q

PvQ
~Q
P
 DEDUCTIVE REASONING

 A process of conclusion making constructed by a general

facts.
 The procedure is deduction
 General-particular
 Eg: Indonesian legal system is falling apart. So many laws
that contradict each other. Law enforcement is poor and so is
the law enforcer. The regulations are not suitable for
Indonesian society anymore.
 Syllogism
 INDUCTIVE REASONING

 A process of conclusion making constructed by a particular

facts
 The procedure is induction
 particular-general
 E.g.: In Indonesia, many laws that contradict each other. Law
enforcement is poor and so is the law enforcer. The
regulations are not suitable for Indonesian society anymore . It
is showing us that Indonesian legal system is falling apart.
 Generalization, analogy
 INDUCTIVE REASONING

 Generalization is a use of a general term to represent certain

condition/phenomena, without using any description
 Generalization is constructed by a statistic

 Analogy is a comparison of one condition with another similar

condition to get a conclusion.
 ARGUMENTATION

 Types of argumentation:

Argumen bergantung P1 Jan dapat dipidana (melakukan pembunuhan)

KARENA
P1 P2 Jan telah menghilangkan nyawa ibunya
P3 Jan sengaja melakukannya
a a

P2 P3

Notes: a or b on the arrow showing that

arguments are “bergantung” (if it’s same
alphabet) and “bebas” (If it’s different
alphabet)
Sidharta, Hukum Penalaran dan Penalaran Hukum, page 180
 ARGUMENTATION

 Argumen bebas:

P1 Jan dapat dipidana (melakukan pembunuhan)

KARENA
P1 P2 Jan telah menyelundup narkoba
P3 Jan telah membunuh ibunya
a b

P2 P3

Sidharta, Hukum Penalaran dan Penalaran Hukum, page 180

 ARGUMENTATION

 Argumentasi bertahap

P1

P1 Jan tidak perlu dipidana penjara

a
KARENA
P2 P2 Jan akan diputus bebas
KARENA
b P3 tidak cukup bukti untuk menjerat Jan

P3

Sidharta, Hukum Penalaran dan Penalaran Hukum, page 180

 ARGUMENTATION

 Argumentasi campuran

P1 P1 Jan dapat dipenjara

KARENA
a b P2 Jan telah membunuh ibunya
a
P3 Jan sengaja melakukannya
P4 Jan menyelundupkan narkoba
P2 P3 P4

Sidharta, Hukum Penalaran dan Penalaran Hukum, page 180

MODELS OF LEGAL REASONING ON
FAMILY LEGAL SYSTEMS
MODELS OF LEGAL REASONING
 FAMILY LEGAL SYSTEM

 Law as a system:
• Characteristics:
 Open, not isolating itself
 Wholeness, complete
 divided in several parts, each sub-system is only
 meaningful inside the system
 interdependent, avoiding conflicts
 self-regulation
 self-control, adjustment
 transformative
 having goals

Sidharta, 2006
 CLASSIFICATION

 The legal systems of the world today are generally based on

one of three basic systems: civil law, common law, and
religious law – or combinations of these. However, the legal
system of each country is shaped by its unique history and so
incorporates individual variations.
 MODELS OF LEGAL REASONING

 NATURAL LAW THOUGHTS

 Law=universal and perennial
 Self-evidence, deductive logic
 4 characteristics:
1. Natural law usually consists of one or several generalized,
but nevertheless essentially concrete, moral or legal ‘values‘
or ‘value judgments‘
2. These ‘value judgments‘ are, in accordance with their
‘absolute source‘ – ‘Nature‘ Revelation (God), or Reason –
universally valid and immutable.
3. They are within the reach of human reason properly
employed and, therefore, the objects of ratiocination.
4. Once perceived in their absoluteness and ‘pure rationality‘
they overrule every form of Positive Law
 MODELS OF LEGAL REASONING

 LEGAL POSITIVISM
 5 assumptions of positivism:
1. Logico empirism truth = empirical evidence
2. Objective Reality Only 1 reality. Subject-object is separated.
3. Reductionism Every object can be reduced into smaller
parts.
4. Determinism The ordered world is determined by cause &
ef fect. Due to this causality law, human beings can control
the world.
5. Value Free There is no room for subjectivity. Value
considertions are not relevant.
NOTE: ―Positivism‖ here is not the same with LEGAL
POSITIVISM
 The contention (=idea) that:
1. laws are commands of human beings;
2. there is no necessar y connection between law and morals (or ‗law as
it is‘ and ‗law as it ought to be‘);
3. the analysis (or study of meanings) of legal concepts is: wor th
pur suing, and to be distinguished from historical inquiries into the
causes or origins of laws, from sociological inquiries into the relation
of law and other social phenomena and from the critical appraisal of
law whether in terms of morals, social aims, function or other wise.
4. the legal system is a closed logical system in which correct legal
decisions can be deduced by logical means from predetermined legal
rules without references to social aim, policies, moral standard;
5. moral judgements cannot be established or defended as statements
of fact by rational argument, evidence or proof (non -cognitivism in
ethics).

Excerpt from H.L.A. Hart by Dale A. Nance, Law and Justice, 1999
 MODELS OF LEGAL REASONING

 UTILITARIANISM
 The command theory of law takes utility as the foundation of
morals.
 The public good ought to be the object of the legislator and
general utility ought to be the foundation of the legislator’s
reasoning.
Sinha, 1993: 179
 Greatest happiness of a greatest number
 Bentham’s utilitarianism is clearly individualistic and
egalitarian. Law must serve the totality of individuals in a
community.
 As a result, the end of legislation as THE GREATEST
HAPPINESS OF THE GREATEST NUMBER.
 The happiness of the greatest number has to be reconciled
with the sum of the pleasures of each individual.
 What is law (according to Bentham) ?
 An assemblage of SIGNS (sekumpulan tanda)
 Declarator y of a VOLITION (memuat kehendak)
 Conceived or adopted by the SOVEREIGN ( diterima oleh
pemegang kekuasaan)
 Concerning CONDUCT to be observed by persons subject to his
power (terkait perilaku warga masyarakat)
 Such volition relying on certain EVENTS which it is intended such
declaration should be a means of causing ( ada konkretisasi
berupa peristiwa nyata yang diperlakukan sebagai “sebab”)
 The prospect of which it is intended should act as a MOTIVE upon
those whose conduct is in question ( akibat yang dikehendaki
dari perbuatan itu merupakan motif).

Raymond Wacks, 1995: 46

 MODELS OF LEGAL REASONING

 HISTORICAL SCHOOL OF LAW/HISTORISCHE RECHT SCHULE

 Von Savigny, G. Puchta, Krabbe
 Law is never created but it grows along with its society .
 Law has never been created, it grows along with its society ( Recht ist
nicht gemacht; es ist und wird mit dem Volke). Recht ist nimmer
gemacht… (sikap anti kodifikasi; biarkan dalam bentuk asalinya ;
hukum itu sistem kultural ber sumber pada ruh suatu bangsa; berupa
asas-asas normatif)
 This remark initially came from OTTO GIERKE, “Das Recht wird und lebt
mit dem Volke” (hukum itu terjadi dan hidup besama rakyat).
 For law, as for language, there is no moment of absolute cessation*; it
is subject to the same movement and development as ever y other
popular tendency; and this ver y development remains under the same
law of inward necessity, as in its earliest stages. Law grows with the
growth, and strengthens with the strength of the people, and finally
dies away as the nation loses its nationality.
 MODELS OF LEGAL REASONING

 SOCIOLOGICAL JURISPRUDENCE
 Roscoe Pound: Law as a tool of social engineering
 Legal gaps (lacone) between positive law and living law.
 Two main sociological approaches:
 How sociology looks the reciprocal relations between law and
society:
1. Structural-Functional Approach : (Integration Appr., Order
Appr., Equilibrium Appr.)
2. Conflict Approach :
Structuralist-Marxist
Structuralist-Nonmarxist
Nasikun, 2000
 Structural-Functional Approach:
1. Attempts to explain why society functions the way it does by
focusing on the relationships between the various social
institutions that make up society (e.g., government, law,
education, religion,etc).
2. Society is made-up of groups or institutions, which are
cohesive, share common norms, and have a definitive
culture
 Conflict Approach: Social structures are created through
conflict between people with dif fering interests and
resources. Individuals and resources, in turn, are influenced
by these structures and by the "unequal distribution of power
and resources in the society
 This school of law argues that POSITIVE LAW should reflect the
LIVING LAW.
 Two primary questions of sociological jurisprudence:
–What is the relationship between the law in action (living law)
and the law on the books (positive law)?
–Do the social dynamics shape and are reflected in positive law?
 Also interested in what the positive law says it does and what it
actually does.
 WHAT IS LAW? Law = judge-made law (law in-concreto)
 The task of judges to make positive law always reflect the living
law.
 Law on the books is not law in action – a principle almost all
would accept today.
 The life of the law is in its enforcement.
 MODELS OF LEGAL REASONING

 LEGAL REALISM
 Realism builds on earlier challenges to formal law.
•Law is in flux and created by judges.
•Law is a means to an end. It serves social purposes which can
be examined.
•Judges are human.
 So, Legislation cannot control court decisions. The primary
function of law is to settle legal disputes.
 That is why the study of law is very empirical such as:
- Personal backgrounds of judges -> motives in sentencing
- Juror’s way of thinking
-Consequences of legal procedures in social services
 WHAT IS LAW? Law = manifestation of symbolic meanings of
social actors
 It is the law in reality -> the real law -> legal realism.
•Legislation is not the real law since it is just the potential of
the law.