Argumentum a maiore ad minus
The conclusion “ argumentum a maiore ad minus ” particularly indicates well-known and simple conclusions in logic
- from the general to the individual and from more to less (“What applies to everyone also applies to one” or “If a canister holds ten liters of gasoline, it also holds three liters”),
- from the bigger to the smaller ("If a door is big enough for a two-meter man, a smaller person can walk through it upright"),
- from the stronger to the weaker ("A tow rope for a two-tonne truck also pulls a small car").
In legal methodology , the “ argumentum a maiore ad minus ” marks the conclusion from the larger to the smaller, from a more extensive regulation to a case that requires fewer requirements. As a result, the legal consequence of a legal norm for the less extensive offense is affirmed.
The reverse conclusion “ argumentum a minori ad maius ” is also possible. In both cases it is a first-right conclusion, also called argumentum a fortiori .
example
Example of an argument a maiore ad minus
If the entire will can be revoked by destruction or modification according to § 2255 BGB , then this is even more possible for parts of it.
Example of an argument a maiore ad minus
If an official is authorized to arrest a person who disrupts the official act in accordance with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO ) during an official act that he is leading (e.g. a search of a suspected drug dealer) , then the dismissal of the interferer is even more permitted as a minor measure.
Legal method criticism
The legal critique of method has long recognized that an uncritical application of the argumentum a maiore ad minus can lead to incorrect results.
For example, if someone has the right to drive over the property of their neighbors with trucks ( right of way ), this does not mean that they can also use the path with their car. It is always decisive whether the major part of the standard, in this case the right of way for trucks, is incompletely incomplete. This scope of the norm needs to be interpreted in detail with the help of recognized legal interpretation methods. If it then emerges that the wording of the rule is indeed incomplete with gaps, the gap can be closed by switching from the general to the partial validity (“teleological”).
The term argumentum a maiore ad minus thus only characterizes a legal process of weighing up when dealing with incorrectly incomplete formulations. Typically, these gaps are perceived as obvious, so that there are usually no concerns about the outcome of the weighing process. Federal or state laws only occasionally have such loopholes, for example if they were passed under time pressure. The main area of application of the weighing process described by argumentum a maiore ad minus is therefore less the art of interpreting the law than the everyday legal handling of incomplete contractual provisions, statutes , guidelines or administrative acts .
Others
swell
- ↑ See about § 36 in: Egon Schneider (founder), Friedrich E. Schnapp: Logic for Jurists. The basics of thought theory and the application of law. 6th, revised and expanded edition. Vahlen, Munich 2006, ISBN 3-8006-2997-6 .
