entry rules “which take us from experiences [. . .] to such utterances” (Putnam 1981,
11) inform us about the conditions under which we are allowed to adduce an
empirical reason.
As we know from the discussions about the legal concept of evidence, the
evidence used in the contexts of rule application should be relevant. And because,
as Hare said, “evaluative properties supervene on descriptive properties” (Hare
1984, 3), evidence is relevant because our evaluation results supervene on the
empirical reasons or the evidence which supports these reasons. So, the results of
the evaluations are dependent on the facts and would be different if the facts would
change. Thereby we are rationally bound to accept different evaluative propositions
if new facts would lead to different evaluation results. But we are certainly bound
relative to our criteria: We can either accept the evaluative result or change our
criteria. But if we use certain criteria, we will need certain evidence relative to these
criteria. So, specific evidence is relevant relative to different evaluation standards or
criteria.
But not every relevant evidence is allowed. Beside the relevance condition, the
empirical reasons used in the application of rules should be true or at least wellsupported. And the rules governing the admissibility of evidence are relative to
normative systems. But because evaluation supervenes on evidence, different rules
for evidence lead to different evaluation results. So, these rules are themselves
relevant for the outcomes related to the rule system and should be evaluated too.
What applies to the deduction of individual norms does similarly apply to the
deduction of rules and thus to the application of the deducibility criterion. We always
need evidence for a correct rule application, but what kind of evidence is needed is
relative to our used rules for evidence and the applied rules. And these considerations are slightly the same in the context of rule deduction and thus in the
application of the deducibility criterion. Not only individual norms can be deduced
but rules can also be deduced by adducing as reasons normative and further
0 It holds
1 Since
It is permitted that Mister Hart moves the pawn
the next two squares along the same file.
On its first move the pawn may advance two squares
along the same file provided both squares are
unoccupied.
If Mister Hart moves a pawn for the first time in the
game and both squares in front of the pawn are
unoccupied, then it is permitted that Mister Hart moves
the pawn the next two squares along the same file.
Mister Hart moves a pawn for the first time in the
game and both squares in front of the pawn are
unoccupied.
It is permitted that Mister Hart moves the pawn
the next two squares along the same file.
2 Therefore
3 Since
4 Therefore
Rule formulation
Conditional
individual norm
Unconditional
individual norm
Factual claim
Fig. 3 Inferring an individual norm
116
K. C. Reinmuth
11) inform us about the conditions under which we are allowed to adduce an
empirical reason.
As we know from the discussions about the legal concept of evidence, the
evidence used in the contexts of rule application should be relevant. And because,
as Hare said, “evaluative properties supervene on descriptive properties” (Hare
1984, 3), evidence is relevant because our evaluation results supervene on the
empirical reasons or the evidence which supports these reasons. So, the results of
the evaluations are dependent on the facts and would be different if the facts would
change. Thereby we are rationally bound to accept different evaluative propositions
if new facts would lead to different evaluation results. But we are certainly bound
relative to our criteria: We can either accept the evaluative result or change our
criteria. But if we use certain criteria, we will need certain evidence relative to these
criteria. So, specific evidence is relevant relative to different evaluation standards or
criteria.
But not every relevant evidence is allowed. Beside the relevance condition, the
empirical reasons used in the application of rules should be true or at least wellsupported. And the rules governing the admissibility of evidence are relative to
normative systems. But because evaluation supervenes on evidence, different rules
for evidence lead to different evaluation results. So, these rules are themselves
relevant for the outcomes related to the rule system and should be evaluated too.
What applies to the deduction of individual norms does similarly apply to the
deduction of rules and thus to the application of the deducibility criterion. We always
need evidence for a correct rule application, but what kind of evidence is needed is
relative to our used rules for evidence and the applied rules. And these considerations are slightly the same in the context of rule deduction and thus in the
application of the deducibility criterion. Not only individual norms can be deduced
but rules can also be deduced by adducing as reasons normative and further
0 It holds
1 Since
It is permitted that Mister Hart moves the pawn
the next two squares along the same file.
On its first move the pawn may advance two squares
along the same file provided both squares are
unoccupied.
If Mister Hart moves a pawn for the first time in the
game and both squares in front of the pawn are
unoccupied, then it is permitted that Mister Hart moves
the pawn the next two squares along the same file.
Mister Hart moves a pawn for the first time in the
game and both squares in front of the pawn are
unoccupied.
It is permitted that Mister Hart moves the pawn
the next two squares along the same file.
2 Therefore
3 Since
4 Therefore
Rule formulation
Conditional
individual norm
Unconditional
individual norm
Factual claim
Fig. 3 Inferring an individual norm
116
K. C. Reinmuth