The laws of the universe and midgard. in formal logic. Thinking as an object of study of logic. The role of thinking in cognition
Logic has its own rules. There are four main ones. Three of them were formed by Aristotle. The laws of Aristotle's logic are the law of non-contradiction, the excluded middle, identity. Much later, another law was added to the basic laws - the law of sufficient reason.
Laws are directly related to absolutely all reasoning. and also the operation performed by these reasonings has no significance at all.
There are also additional laws logic. These include:
- twice no;
- contraposition.
Various kinds of reflections are also built on these laws. They provide a link between thoughts.
Laws of logic
The first law is identity law. The bottom line is that in any thought in the process of reasoning, there must be some clear, internal content. It is also important that this content does not change in the process. Certainty, in a sense, is a fundamental property of thinking. On its basis, the law of identity is derived: all thoughts must be completely and completely identical to themselves. Different thoughts cannot be identified under any circumstances. Often this law is violated by the fact that the same thoughts are expressed different ways. Problems also arise when words are used that have several completely different meanings. In this case, thoughts can be identified erroneously.
Identification of incompatible thoughts often occurs when the dialogue is conducted by people of different professions, differing from each other in the level of education, and so on. The identification of different concepts is a serious logical error, which in some cases people make deliberately.
The laws of logic include law of non-contradiction. Let's start with the fact that logical thinking is consistent thinking. Any thought containing a contradiction can noticeably complicate the process of cognition. Formal logical analysis is based on the need for non-contradiction of thinking: if there are two contradictory concepts, then at least one of them must be false. They cannot be true at the same time under any circumstances. This law can act only on two absolutely contradictory judgments.
Law of the excluded middle also included in the basic laws of logic. Its action extends to conflicting judgments. The bottom line is that two opposing propositions cannot be false at the same time - one is necessarily true. Note that contradictory judgments are such statements, one of which denies something about the object or phenomenon of our world, and the second at the same moment asserts the same thing, about the same phenomenon or object. In some cases, it may not be quite a phenomenon or object, but only about some specific part. If it is possible to prove the truth of one of the contradictory judgments, then the falsity of the other is proved automatically.
Completes the laws of logic law of sufficient reason. It expresses the requirements that apply to the validity of thoughts. The bottom line is that any thought that has a sufficient basis can be recognized as true. In other words, if there is a thought, then there must be its justification. In most cases, a sufficient basis is any experience of a person. In some cases, the only way to prove the truth is by providing facts, collecting additional information, and so on. To confirm any particular cases, to confirm the truth, it is not necessary to refer to any experience - there are many axioms in the world, that is, that does not need any proof.
Three basic laws of logic are formulated by Aristotle:
- the law of identity,
- the law (prohibition) of contradiction,
- the law of the excluded middle.
And the fourth law - of sufficient reason - is put forward German mathematician and philosopher of the 17th-18th centuries. Leibniz.
1. The law of identity.
The essence of the law: each thought or concept of the subject must be clear and retain its unambiguity throughout the entire reasoning and conclusion.
A violation of this law is the substitution of concepts (often used in legal practice).
This law directly reveals the nature of the most fundamental properties of logical thought - certainty and consistency.
Otherwise, this law can be expressed as follows: thoughts about objects, properties or relations must remain unchanged in content in the process of all reasoning about them.
The reason for the occurrence of errors is most often the ambiguity of words and, as a result, the violation of the law of identity in reasoning. How, say, to understand such a sentence: "The piano part brought great commercial success"? Whether we are talking about a brilliant performance and a large collection thanks to him, or are we talking about sold for good price musical instruments?
The ambiguity of expressions can also arise due to ambiguous grammatical constructions. The confusion caused by such circumstances is familiar to everyone thanks to the famous "execution cannot be pardoned." "Carelessness breeds arrogance." In it it is impossible to understand what is meant by generated and what is meant by generating. Completely similar in this respect are expressions like: "The platoon changes the guard" or "The minority subjugates the majority." He wittily used the ambiguity of A.P. Chekhov, putting a message into the mouth of one of the characters: “In front of you is the skull of a monkey of a very rare variety. We have only two such skulls, one is in the National Museum, the other is mine.”
It is impossible to identify different thoughts, it is impossible to take identical thoughts for non-identical ones. The result of the application - the law of identity provides certainty logical thinking.
2. The law of contradiction
The essence of the law: two judgments incompatible with each other cannot be true at the same time; at least one of them is necessarily false.
The law of contradiction reveals the same properties of certainty and consistency, but only expresses them in a negative form. Or, to put it a little more specifically, according to this norm of thinking, in reasoning there should not be simultaneous affirmations and denials about anything. Therefore, this law should be called the law of the prohibition of contradiction. “It is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be inherent in the same thing in the same respect at the same time” (Aristotle, Works, Vol. 1, p. 125). Recognizing a position and immediately rejecting it always means confusion, lack of clear and precise ideas. And when we need to show the inconsistency, the inadmissibility of certain arguments or views, then first of all we strive to point out the presence in them of absurd, incompatible provisions - contradictions.
Can a projectile that pierces absolutely everything pierce armor that is absolutely uncrackable?
To answer this paradox, it is enough to take another look at the wording of the second law in order to get the correct solution.
Under given conditions, the problem is logically contradictory: a non-penetrating projectile and indestructible armor cannot exist simultaneously.
Another example: for example, Turgenev's Rudin very aptly exposes his opponent Pigasov as inconsistent, when the Goth makes militantly nihilistic statements about the fact that there are no convictions and cannot be, and he defends his pessimistic worldview ardently and with conviction.
So you say: there are no beliefs? - asks
his Rudin.
- No, it can't be.
- Is that your belief?
- Yes.
How do you say they don't exist? Here's one for you first
happening.
In asserting something about any object, we cannot, without contradicting ourselves, deny the same thing about the same object, taken at the same time and in the same relation. The second law ensures the consistency and consistency of thinking, the ability to fix and correct all kinds of contradictions in one's own and other people's reasoning,
3. Law of the excluded middle.
Either the proposition is true, or its negation ("there is no third way"). The essence of the law: of two contradictory judgments, if one is true, then the other is false, and the third is not given. The law of the excluded middle applies to statements that are contradictory and does not apply to statements that are contrary.
When two concepts are opposed to each other, this means the maximum opposition between them, and not just a contradiction. This is expressed in two circumstances: some sign inherent in one of the concepts, firstly, is absent from the other and, secondly, instead of this sign, it has an incompatible with it (black - white, strong - weak, morning - evening ). When another concept is noted only for the absence of any feature and nothing is said about which one is inherent in it instead, then a relation of contradiction arises: “white” and “non-white”, “morning” and “non-morning”, “good” and "unkind", "export" and "non-export".
When applying the law of the excluded middle, we must remember that it does not say anything about which of the two contradictory judgments is true. The law only indicates that one is true, and only one of them, and the other is necessarily false. This means that when we have succeeded in establishing the truth value of one of the two contradictory propositions, the truth value of the other has thus been determined. It is no longer necessary to establish it separately, because it is uniquely determined by the truth value of the concept associated with it. But which of them should be assessed in this way, and which one otherwise - this required a separate study.
It is impossible to avoid recognizing as true one of the two contradictory statements and to look for something third between them. Through the use of this law, the uniqueness of logical thinking is achieved.
Law of Sufficient Reason
The essence of the law: every thought can be recognized as true only when it has a sufficient basis, every thought must be justified. Every thought is true or false, not in itself, but by virtue of a sufficient reason. This means that any proposition, before becoming a scientific truth, must be confirmed by arguments sufficient to recognize it as firmly and irrefutably proven.
A sufficient basis for any thought can be any other thought already tested and recognized as true, from which the truth of the thought under consideration follows. The law ensures the validity of thinking. In all cases when we state something, we are obliged to prove our case, that is, to give sufficient reasons confirming the truth of our thoughts.
| Parameter name | Meaning |
| Article subject: | Law of Identity |
| Rubric (thematic category) | Logics |
BASIC LAWS OF LOGIC
What is the law of identity?
As we remember, logic is ϶ᴛᴏ the science of forms and legal right thinking. The laws of logic are ϶ᴛᴏ objective (ᴛ.ᴇ. not dependent on our desires and preferences) principles, or rules of thought, the observance of which leads any reasoning (regardless of its content) to true conclusions, provided that the original statements (premises) are true.
First and most important law logic - ϶ᴛᴏ identity law, which was formulated by Aristotle in the treatise ʼʼMetaphysicsʼʼ.
The law of identity states that any thought (any reasoning) must necessarily be equal (identical) to itself, ᴛ.ᴇ. it should be clear, precise, simple, definite. In other words, this law prohibits confusion and substitution of concepts in reasoning (ᴛ.ᴇ. use the same word in different meanings or nest the same value in different words), create ambiguity, evade the topic, etc. For example, the meaning at first glance of the statement: The students listened to the teacher's explanation– is incomprehensible, because it violates the law of identity. After all, the word listened to, which means that the whole statement can be understood in two ways: either the students carefully listened to the teacher, or they missed everything (moreover, the first meaning is opposite to the second). It turns out that the statement was one, and it has two possible meanings, ᴛ.ᴇ. – the identity (1 ¹ 2) is violated. Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, the above statement is not equal to itself. In other words, it mixes or identifies different situations that are not identical to each other: 1. The students heard everything; 2. The students did not hear anything. This identification of the non-identical (the equalization of the unequal) leads to the ambiguity of the statement. The symbolic record of this law looks like this: a ® a(read - if a then a), where a - ϶ᴛᴏ any concept, statement or whole reasoning.
Violations of the Law of Identity
The law of identity is violated when non-identical objects are identified in reasoning.
When the law of identity is violated involuntarily, out of ignorance, then logical errors arise, which, as we already know, are called paralogisms; but when this law is deliberately violated, in order to confuse the interlocutor and prove to him some false thought, then errors appear, called sophistry. Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, sophism - ϶ᴛᴏ outwardly correct proof of a false thought through deliberate violation of logical laws. Let's take an example of sophism. Which is better: eternal bliss or a sandwich? Of course, eternal bliss. And what should be better than eternal bliss? Of course, nothing! And a sandwich is better than nothing, therefore, it is better than eternal bliss.
At the same time, not only vague judgments and sophisms are built on violations of the law of identity. By violating this law, you can create some kind of comic effect. For example, N.V. Gogol in the poem ʼʼDead Soulsʼʼ, describes the landowner Nozdrev, says that he was historical man, because wherever he appeared, some kind of story. Many comic aphorisms are based on the violation of the law of identity. Eg: Do not stand anywhere, otherwise it will fall. Also, with the help of violation of this law, many jokes are created. Eg:
- I broke my arm in two places.
Don't go to these places again.
As you can see, in all the examples above, the same technique is used: in the same words, various meanings, situations, topics, one of which is not equal to the other, ᴛ.ᴇ. the law of identity is violated.
Violation of this law also underlies many tasks and puzzles known to us since childhood. For example, we ask the interlocutor: ʼʼ What (why) is there water in a glass beaker?ʼʼ deliberately creating ambiguity in this mattere (why - For what and for what - for what subject, where). The interlocutor answers one question (for example, he says: to drink, water flowers, etc. etc.), and we mean another question and, accordingly; another answer ( behind the glass).
As we can see, the law of identity operates in a variety of intellectual and speech situations and is violated both unintentionally and intentionally. Moreover, in the second case, its violations can pursue both harmless and negative goals.
The law of identity - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Law of Identity" 2017, 2018.
Law of the excluded middle Law of contradiction Law of sufficient reason. The law of identity. Law of the excluded middle. Law... .
Chapter I. (1) Fundamental Laws of Logic A law in scientific knowledge is nothing but a necessary connection between certain phenomena. With its help, knowing some of them, you can foresee what others will be associated with the first. So, the laws of thermal expansion ... .
Basic logical laws Human thinking is subject to logical laws, or laws of logic. The law of thinking, or logical law, is the necessary, essential connection of thoughts in the process of reasoning. These laws are formed independently of the will and desire...
Essence of law: each objectively true and logically right thought or the concept of an object must be definite and retain its unambiguity throughout the entire reasoning and derivation. The law is written like this:
A There is A or a = a(for judgments)
A There is A or A = A(for concepts)
Thus, the law of identity requires that in the process of a certain reasoning, every thought be identical to itself, and different thoughts never be identified.
Let us recall that identity is approximate equality, the similarity of objects in some respect. For example, all liquids are thermally conductive and elastic. In objective reality, there is no absolute identity, it exists in relation to difference. However, when known conditions(within certain limits) we can digress from existing differences and fix their attention only on the identity of objects or their properties
Therefore, everything that can be the subject of our thought has the property of certainty. Every thing, even internally contradictory, as long as it exists as this thing, is relatively stable, certain quality, in which it is identical to itself, until it passes into a new quality
The definiteness of the objective world is reflected in one of the characteristic features correct thinking - in the property of human thought to isolate things from the surrounding world and consider them separately, analytically, taking into account the identification and generalization of their essential features. Without this ability of man, our very thinking in the form of concepts would be impossible. Concepts, as you know, represent a generalized reflection of things, they fix the general, stable. This specificity of concepts reveals the real content of the law of identity. As long as a thing exists in its quality, we must also take the concept of it unambiguously, in a certain sense. The objective world does not remain constant, things change, but, changing in some properties and relations, they still remain within their measure, and, consequently, the concepts about them continue to retain their stability and unambiguity.
In everyday practice, the objects around us are usually considered each time from one side, in certain respect. For example, we are talking about a specific person, about a given substance or natural process, regardless of the change in their states and properties; about historically certain period in the development of society, despite the change of generations and the eternal fluidity of the material and spiritual conditions of life. In this case, it is possible to identify different thoughts
In thinking, the law of identity acts as a normative rule (principle). It means that in the course of reasoning one cannot replace one thought with another, one concept with another. It is also impossible to pass off identical thoughts as opposite ones, and opposite ones as identical ones.
The law of identity imposes the following requirements on the human thought process
Firstly, in the process of reasoning, thought must be identical to itself (i.e., the identity of the object of thought). It follows that the ambiguity of the subject in the course of logical reasoning is inaccessible. That is why it is very important that in discussion, scientific polemics, concepts are used in the same sense. In thinking, the violation of the law of identity manifests itself when a person does not discuss the topic under discussion, but arbitrarily replaces one subject of discussion with another, uses concepts not in the sense in which it is accepted. Often, for example, in Everyday life a materialist is considered a pragmatic person, gravitating towards profit, towards personal enrichment, and an idealist is a person who believes in ideals, lives in the name of a lofty goal, etc. Meanwhile, as is known, in philosophy, it is customary to consider those people who consider matter to be primary, and consciousness secondary, to be considered a materialist. Thus, thinking will be logical and true under such a condition that in the course of reasoning each concept will be conceived in a strictly defined meaning.
Often in the process of discussions, discussions of the problem, disputes are essentially replaced by disputes about words. Often people talk about different things, believing that they mean the same thing or event. A logical error is often made when people use homonyms, i.e. words that have a double meaning ("content", "sex", "consequence", etc.). For example: "students listened to teacher's explanation"; "Because of absent-mindedness, the drafts player more than once lost glasses at the Olympics"
Logical errors of this kind, often encountered in violation of this law, are usually called substitution or confusion of concepts. Such errors genetically have subjective roots. The substitution of concepts often occurs due to inaccurate knowledge or simply ignorance of the content of the concepts used, in addition, it often seems to a person that there is no difference between the concepts used, but in reality they contain a different semantic load and cannot be identical with the meaning of the proposed reasoning.
Secondly, in the process of reasoning about any subject, it is impossible to replace this subject with another. Let's look at an example. So, if we are discussing the issue of the commission of a criminal offense (let’s say embezzlement) by citizen S., then we should deeply and thoroughly discuss this particular case, namely the act of citizen S., and not other accomplices (theft). Otherwise, it is hardly possible to give an objective assessment of this particular act and determine in a qualified manner the real guilt of citizen S
It should be noted that when the law of identity is violated, another error often occurs, which in logic is usually characterized by the substitution of the thesis. In the process of proof or refutation, the thesis put forward is often consciously or unconsciously replaced by another. In scientific disputes and creative discussions, this manifests itself in attributing to the opponent what he did not really say. Such methods of conducting discussions are unacceptable, both scientifically and ethically.
However, one should emphasize important aspect. It is connected with the fact that the law of identity allows in the course of reasoning to carry out not a substitution, but a replacement of the subject of thought. This means moving from discussing one problem to another. At the same time, the transition to another question should not replace the content of the previous one. This provision is important for the practical activities of people, including in the field of economic and legal
The law of identity does not at all require that the world of objects and phenomena remain frozen, unchanged. He cannot demand this because, by their nature, the laws of logic are valid only in the sphere of thinking. Any attempt to extend the requirements of this law (as well as others) of formal logic to external world is a distortion of its tasks and laws of thinking
Thus, in thinking, the law of identity acts as a normative rule. Implementing rules and principles mental activity, this law requires the exclusion in the course of reasoning of an arbitrary change in the subject of thought, the substitution of thought about the subject
n1.doc
Chapter 6. LOGICAL LAWS AND THEIR USE IN JURISPRUDENCE
§ 1. The concept of a logical law
Legal thinking, like any mental activity, is subject to certain logical laws. Conclusions can be recognized as true only if certainty, consistency, consistency and validity of reasoning are provided. These requirements are satisfied subject to the logical laws of thinking: identity, non-contradiction, excluded third and sufficient reason. “If our premises are correct, and if we correctly apply the laws of thought to them, then the result must correspond to reality.”*
* Marx K., Engels F. Op. - T. 20. - S. 629.
Logical laws ensure the truth of the conclusion because they reflect internal, necessary, essential connection between thoughts about circumstances subject to legal assessment.
Laws of logic - these are the laws of the correct construction and connection of thoughts that have developed in the process of human practical activity, they are strictly consistent with objective reality, characterize the actual connection that exists between the phenomena of objective reality reflected in various forms thoughts. In addition, both thinking and the phenomena of objective reality are subject to the same dialectical laws, which is also the basis for the truth of the conclusion built on the laws of logic. “Our subjective thinking and the objective world are subject to the same laws”, and therefore “they cannot contradict each other in their results, but must agree with each other”*. And with the right qualification, in particular, the assessment of the crime (subjective thinking) reflects the actual circumstances of the crime (the objective world). The essence of qualification lies in the establishment and legal consolidation of the exact correspondence of the signs of the committed act to the signs of the corpus delicti provided for by the criminal law. Therefore, the qualification process should be based on the correct connection of thoughts with each other, exclude uncertainty, inconsistency, inconsistency and groundlessness of conclusions.
* There. - S. 581.
Neglect of logical laws, especially in the process of qualifying crimes, leads to judicial errors. Violation of the laws of logic, the use of false initial data causes more significant harm in the field of application of rights than in other areas. public life. This is explained by the fact that the qualification of a crime is a purely mental process, and it is clear that a violation of the logic of thinking leads to an incorrect legal assessment of the act and negative legal consequences.
For the correct application of the laws of logic, it is necessary to understand their general properties.
A characteristic feature of all logical laws is their universality. It manifests itself in the fact that the laws of logic apply to all spheres. cognitive activity. The universality of logical laws obliges them to be observed in any legal activity.
Logical laws are inherent objectivity. They reflect the actual relationship of actual circumstances that exists regardless of the subjective discretion of the person performing the qualification. The judge, the investigator cannot either cancel or replace the laws of logic, because otherwise, they are not able to correctly understand what they have done and give it an appropriate legal assessment.
Logical laws are sustainable. This means that the content of the laws does not change when the subject matter of the argument changes. The stability property of logical laws allows each time to give the same legal assessment various events, coinciding in their essential features, provided for by legal norms.
Logical laws reflect essential connections between thoughts. This means that when evaluating an event, its essential circumstances must be taken into account. The application of the laws of logic to secondary thoughts, not related to the signs of a crime, does not allow us to draw a correct conclusion.
At the same time, the significance of logical laws cannot be absolutized. For a correct assessment of an event, it is not enough just to observe the requirements of these laws in the process of reasoning. Importance has, in addition, ensuring the reliability of the initial data on which the assessment was based, which requires compliance with the completeness of the investigation and judicial review cases, as well as provisions of laws.
§ 2. Types of logical laws and the possibility of their use in the qualification of crimes
There are the following laws of logic: identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle and sufficient reason.
1.Law of Identity means that the content of any thought in the process of reasoning must be the same, constant, i.e. identical to itself.
The essence of the law of identity in relation to the qualification of a crime lies in the fact that, proving the presence of a particular corpus delicti in an act, it is necessary to know exactly all the signs of this corpus delicti, unambiguously understand them and constantly keep in mind precisely these signs, and not any others. In the process of qualification, one should strictly observe the requirements of the law of identity: do not change the subject of proof, do not mix different concepts, do not use various definitions the same concept, etc.
Despite the obviousness of the requirements of the law of identity, its conditions are often violated when qualifying crimes. These violations come down mainly to two logical errors - the substitution of the concept and the substitution of the thesis.
Essence substitution of the concept lies in the fact that instead of the required one, another, outwardly similar concept is used. The most typical case of substitution of concepts is the arbitrary use of certain legal terms, misidentification concepts. Special attention it is necessary to pay attention to the statements of witnesses, victims and other persons who do not have legal training and therefore most often allow the substitution of legal concepts. Thus, Mrs. N., in her statement addressed to the chief of police, asked Mrs. O. to be prosecuted for robbery, as the latter snatched her purse with money from her hands and disappeared. Here, not only the factual side of the case is stated, but an attempt is made to "qualify" what has been done. It is obvious that Ms. N.’s idea of the concept of “robbery” is erroneous and not based on the law, therefore, when investigating a criminal case, when qualifying crimes, it is necessary, first of all, to objectively establish the circumstances of the crime committed, and then explain to interested persons the meaning of individual legal concepts and the resulting criminal-legal assessment of the deed. IN this case the actions of the perpetrator should have been qualified as robbery, and not robbery, which entails the corresponding legal consequences.
Sometimes the reason for the substitution of concepts is some features of the linguistic expression, namely the use of homonyms and synonyms in reasoning. Homonyms are words that sound the same but have different meanings. For example, “act” is a document and “act” is an action, “marriage” is poor-quality products and “marriage” is family union men and women, etc. Synonyms reflect certain shades of the properties of an object, therefore, when choosing synonymous words in the qualification process, one must take into account their features. In the official classification of crimes, errors associated with the use of homonyms and synonyms are practically not encountered. More often they are allowed in informal qualifications, for example, in the statements of participants in the proceedings.
To eliminate logical errors associated with the substitution of concepts in the process of qualifying crimes, it is necessary to accurately understand the meaning of criminal law concepts, which is an important prerequisite for the correct qualification of crimes.
Substitution of the thesis - a logical error in the process of proof and refutation, when it is proved or refuted not the put forward position, but another, and the conclusion extends to this position. As a result of such an error, all the evidence given in support of the thesis put forward is either insufficient or not related to the subject of proof. For example, if during judicial trial If Mr. A. is proven to have committed a crime, then the evidence collected in the case must establish or refute the fact that Mr. A. committed the crime, but not by another person.
When qualifying, the subject of proof is the corpus delicti, which is established in the actions of a particular person, this is what is subject to proof. In the event that the investigator, in the process of qualification, the study of evidence, allows the substitution of the thesis, this will lead to a legal error. For example, if, starting to prove the presence in actions official composition of misappropriation of another's property through the use of one's official position (part 2 of article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), only the abuse of official powers is actually proved (Article 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and on this basis it is concluded that theft is proven, then this will be a typical case of substitution of the thesis when qualifications.
The essence of this error lies in the fact that, having formulated one thesis to be proven, the investigator brought a system of evidence that actually substantiates another thesis.
2.Law of non-contradiction: two opposite thoughts about the same subject, taken at the same time and in the same respect, cannot be true at the same time. One of them is necessarily false, the other is either true or also false.
For example, the judgments: “The accused 3. On April 1 at 20 o’clock committed murder out of hooligan motives” and “The accused 3. On April 1 at 20 o’clock he committed murder out of mercenary motives” are opposite. It is obvious that one of these judgments is necessarily false, the other judgment may also be false, but it may turn out to be true. If, for example, it is proved that at the indicated time the accused committed the murder not out of hooligan motives, this does not mean that he committed it out of mercenary motives. The law of non-contradiction suggests that the crime may have been committed for other motives, such as jealousy. Thus, the law of non-contradiction makes it possible to detect contradictions in the qualification of crimes, its incompleteness, one-sidedness.
The application of the law of non-contradiction presupposes the fulfillment of a number of conditions. The main one is that the judgments expressed must be opposite. This means that one of them must assert one thing, and the second judgment - another about the same event, taken in the same relation. If the event is taken in different respects, then the law of non-contradiction does not apply in this case. For example, the repeated commission of a crime can be considered as a constructive sign of a specific corpus delicti (for example, paragraph “b” of Part 2 of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) or as an aggravating circumstance (Article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
There is no contradiction in the judgments that relate to various crimes, various signs elements of crimes, etc. For example, in smuggling and theft, the concept of "large size" can be expressed in different ways. sum of money. In the judgments provided for, for example, paragraph "b" part 3 of Art. 158 and part 1 of Art. 188 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, there is no contradiction regarding the content of the concept of "large size", since these judgments relate to various crimes.
The law of non-contradiction is often violated in the process of collecting and evaluating evidence, which leads to erroneous qualification. Thus, during the investigation of the criminal case on the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm to Mr. M., the investigator focused his attention only on two assumptions, which were to some extent confirmed by the evidence collected in the case. In accordance with the first, the guilty D. caused serious bodily harm to M. in a state of strong mental agitation, the second, opposite, judgment regarding qualifications was that D. committed a crime under Part 1 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. However, two opposite judgments about the same object, taken at the same time, in the same place and in the same relation, cannot be true at the same time. Guided by this provision, the investigator established that at the time of the commission of the crime, D. was not in a state of strong mental agitation, and on this basis came to the conclusion that D. had committed a crime under Part 1 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The investigator's mistake was that, having correctly excluded one of the opposing judgments, he did not take into account that the second judgment by its nature can be both true and false, and did not investigate the third possibility of qualifying the actions of the perpetrator, for example, as attempted murder.
The correct use of the law of non-contradiction in the process of qualifying crimes makes it possible to eliminate contradictions in the evidence collected in the case, which form the basis of qualification, to correctly evaluate opposing judgments and, ultimately, to give a correct criminal-legal assessment of the deed.
3.Law of the excluded middle: two contradictory judgments cannot be simultaneously false, one of them is necessarily true, the other is false, the third judgment is excluded.
The law of the excluded middle operates on the principle of “either - or”, “either - or”, there is no third. For example, the proposition: "The decision of the court is based on the law" contradicts the proposition: "The decision of the court is not based on the law." There is no place for a third judgment here, any other options for judgments under the given circumstances are excluded.
Many provisions of the criminal law are formulated according to the principle of the law of the excluded middle. So, in accordance with Art. 7 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, only a person guilty of a crime is subject to criminal liability, i.e. intentionally or negligently committed a socially dangerous act provided for by criminal law. From the point of view of the law of the excluded middle, this provision means: either the perpetrator of the socially dangerous act provided for by law will be established, or there are no grounds for criminal liability.
In the process of qualifying crimes, the law of the excluded middle aims to find an answer to the question: do the actions of the perpetrator contain the corpus delicti of this crime or not? In fact, the process of qualification of crimes consists of the consistent application of the law of the excluded middle at each stage of qualification: this person the subject of this crime or not, was the crime committed intentionally or not, was there an encroachment on property or not, etc.? According to this law, as we see, a program for the qualification of crimes is being built. Unlike the law of non-contradiction, there is no place here for a third decision, a different qualification. The law of the excluded middle develops and clarifies, concretizes the provisions of the law of non-contradiction, it also requires consistency and consistency of thinking when qualifying crimes, but unlike the latter, it applies only to conflicting judgments. Two judgments are called contradictory if in one of them something is affirmed about some object, and in the other the same thing is denied about the same object, taken in the same tense and relation, and the third judgment is impossible. Unlike contradictory propositions, opposite propositions admit the existence of a third proposition. It can be said that if the law of non-contradiction allows only limiting the number possible solutions(select or discard one of them, bearing in mind that the rest is subject to further verification), then the law of the excluded middle allows us to accept final decision, for one of the two is necessarily true and the third is not given.
The law of the excluded middle has great importance in law enforcement. In legal decisions, using the “either-or” formula, one has to look for clear and unambiguous solutions. For example, it often depends on whether a given person is the subject of an official crime or not, whether the deed will be qualified as official or as a general criminal offense.
Naturally, the law of the excluded middle cannot by itself "suggest" which of the two contradictory propositions is true and which is false. This requires a practical test of each judgment. The law only makes it necessary to give a clear and precise answer, to make right choice between two contradictory judgments regarding the qualification of the deed. But for this it is necessary that the answers were really contradictory.
4. Law of Sufficient Reason: every conclusion must be justified by reference to other thoughts, the truth of which has been proven.
One of the most important properties logical thinking - its validity. A legal decision, including the qualification of a crime, requires substantiation, evidence of truth. Solving this problem, the judge, the investigator in their activities use the factual data obtained in the case, as well as the criminal law, the scientific provisions of the theory of criminal law, the guiding explanations of the plenums Supreme Court Russian Federation, experience of judicial practice.
The Law of Sufficient Reason states in its very general view the requirement for reasonableness of reasoning. The question of what arguments, evidence should be taken as the basis for decisions, is developed by legal science and practice.
In criminal proceedings, the law of sufficient reason is of fundamental importance, since it is directly related to the validity of criminal liability; therefore, it was legally enshrined in the criminal procedure law. Compliance with criminal procedural norms is a guarantee that decisions in a criminal case, including the qualification of crimes, will be sufficiently justified. Thus, the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation obliges the court, the prosecutor, the investigator and the person conducting the inquiry to take all measures provided for by law for a comprehensive, complete and objective study of the circumstances of the case. The verdict of the court must be lawful and justified; if the participation of the defendant in the commission of the crime is not proven, an acquittal is issued.
The law of sufficient reason must be strictly observed at all stages of the qualification of the deed: when establishing the actual circumstances of the case, separating legally significant features, defining all options qualifications under the given circumstances, the establishment of a group of related offenses and, finally, the substantiation of a specific offense. Referring to invalid data at any stage may eventually lead to an error. So, N. was accused of committing daring hooligan actions. The investigator sent the case to court without comprehensively checking mental condition N. at the time of the crime, i.e. violating the law of sufficient reason. During the trial, a forensic psychiatric examination was carried out, on the basis of which the court came to a reasonable conclusion that at the time of the commission of the socially dangerous act, N. was in a state of insanity and was not subject to criminal liability. Correct Application a court of law of sufficient cause avoided a serious legal error.
The creative application of the law of sufficient reason in the practice of a lawyer is facilitated by good knowledge normative material, theoretical provisions and judicial practice.
Logical laws in the process of legal analysis are used in a systemic unity, they are applied in close interconnection, in their totality they cover all aspects of the mental activity of a lawyer. Compliance with these laws in practice contributes to obtaining consistent, reasonable conclusions on the case, aimed at a correct legal assessment of events, at establishing the truth.
Control questions
1. Define the concept of a formal logical law.
2. List the types of logical laws.
3. Define the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity, sufficient reason.
4. What is the difference between the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?
Exercises
1. Determine the logical errors made by applying the law of identity.
A). The prosecutor's office received a statement from rp-on M., which stated that two days ago he had been robbed in a tram by unknown persons. By this fact a criminal case was initiated on the grounds of a crime under Part 2 of Art. 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. During the interrogation, M. explained that during the trip on the tram, his wallet with money disappeared from the back pocket of his trousers. Next to him were three unknown young people. He discovered the loss of his wallet after he got off the tram, but he remembered all three of them well by sight.
B). The caretaker of the Selkhoztekhnika base V. and the brothers G., by agreement between themselves, stole 20 heating batteries worth 303 thousand rubles from the base guarded by V. and took them out in a car.
The court qualified the deed by the guilty under Part 2 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as appropriation of entrusted property. The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation changed this sentence and the actions of the convicts were qualified as theft committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, according to paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Give the arguments that were used in the last decision.
IN). K., working as a warehouse manager of a mineral water plant and abusing his official position, tried to take 275 bottles of mineral water worth 3,000 rubles by car from the territory of the plant for the purpose of theft, but he was detained at the entrance of the plant by private security.
These actions of K. were qualified by the preliminary investigation bodies under Part 3 of Art. 30 and p. "c" part 2 of Art. 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The court saw the completed crime in the actions of the perpetrator and returned the case for additional investigation to charge K. with completed theft. At the same time, the court referred to the fact that K. had withdrawn from the warehouse mineral water and for a certain time he could dispose of this water at his own discretion.
G). Mr. S. accused his neighbor L. of slander, i.e. in a crime, under Part.1 Article. 129 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In court, he explained that L. spread false fabrications about the fact that he, S., had built a garage from stolen building materials. In court, it was established that the disgraceful fabrications spread by L. did not correspond to reality and S. acquired Construction Materials in a legal manner.
L. was convicted of libel.
D). N. was suspected of premeditated murder for the mercenary motives of his wife. The evidence collected in the case established that N. led an anti-social lifestyle, was distinguished by exceptional greed among employees, refused to financial assistance elderly parents, often quarreled with his wife about spending Money. The investigator concluded that N. had committed the murder out of mercenary motives and charged the guilty person accordingly.
2. Demonstrate the application of the law of non-contradiction in solving following exercises:
A). During the investigation of the criminal case on the infliction of grievous bodily harm on Mr. M. by Mr. O., the investigator of the Prosecutor's Office investigated two versions.
In accordance with the first, O. was in a state of necessary defense and caused harm to the health of Mr. M. lawfully. O. insisted on a similar explanation of what had happened throughout the entire investigation. The second version was based on the testimony of Mr. M., who claimed that O. deliberately, without any reason, beat him, and for this reason demanded that O. be brought to criminal liability under Part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In the course of the investigation, it was reliably established that O. was not in a state of necessary defense. The investigator came to the conclusion that O.'s actions contained elements of a crime under part 1 of article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and ruled that he be charged as a defendant.
B). In the course of the investigation of the criminal case, it was established that the accused, who had committed the theft of property, was ill with mental illness, depriving him of the opportunity to be aware of his actions or to control them.
The investigator of the prosecutor's office came to the conclusion that the accused was not subject to criminal liability and dropped the criminal case.
IN). It followed from the testimony of the accused Z. that he committed theft by stealing a photographic lens from the store counter in such a way that neither the seller nor the surrounding buyers saw his actions. However, from the testimony of two witnesses it followed that they both saw the moment of the theft committed by Z.
The investigator concluded that Z.'s actions contained elements of a crime under Part 1 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
3. When solving the exercises, explain what is the difference between the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction?
A). As should be understood, based on the law of the excluded middle, the meaning of Art. 8 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: the basis of liability is the commission of an act containing all the signs of a crime under this Code.
B). It followed from the testimony of witness N. that the accused L. was the organizer of the robbery of the cashier of the state farm. L. himself denied his criminal organizational activities and explained that he was only an accomplice of the perpetrators of the crime.
IN). A person who, at the time of committing a socially dangerous act, was in a state of insanity (Article 21 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) is not subject to criminal liability. Individuals declared insane may be subject to other measures of criminal law.
G). A person who voluntarily refuses to complete a crime is not subject to criminal liability. A person who voluntarily refuses to complete a crime is subject to criminal liability if the deed actually committed by him contains the components of another crime.
D). Concealment of a criminal not promised in advance does not entail criminal liability.
Harboring criminals who have committed some of the crimes specified in the law, not promised in advance, entails criminal liability.
E). Pilot K., after completing the flight, landed the helicopter at the airport.
Leaving in violation current instructions near the helicopter, the keys to the locking devices and without handing them over to the duty officer, he left the helicopter parking lot. Taking advantage of the imprudence of K., aircraft engineer Ts., being in drunk, took the keys to the locking devices, entered the cockpit of the helicopter, started the engine and tried to take off. The helicopter crashed and was disabled. The damage to the state amounted to about 3 million rubles. K. was convicted of violating the rules of exploitation air transport causing major damage.
Plenum of the Supreme Court given judgment canceled and dismissed the case against K. due to the lack of corpus delicti, stating that K.'s actions were not in a causal connection with the ensuing consequences.
4. When solving the proposed exercises, demonstrate the application of the law of sufficient reason and indicate negative consequences non-compliance with this law.
A). N. was found guilty of causing Z. grievous bodily harm in excess of the limits of necessary defense under the following circumstances.
Z., being in a state of intoxication, in a quarrel with N., hit the latter twice in the face. Then he pulled out a knife from his pocket and swung it at N., but he dodged the blow. When Z. made another attempt to stab N. with a knife, he, defending himself, grabbed the knife he had and hit the attacker in the abdomen.
Justifying its decision on the inconsistency of the protection with the nature and danger of the assault, the court referred to the fact that N., taking into account Z.'s state of intoxication, could resort to a different, not so strong, method of protection, or easily run away from Z.
Is the decision of the court justified?
B). Security worker B. for 5 months systematically committed theft from the food warehouse, which was under his protection. The amount stolen was 40 thousand rubles. The court qualified these actions according to paragraph “c” of Part 2 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as one continued theft. The verdict stated that the actions of B. in their totality constitute one crime, consisting of a number of identical in their outward signs criminal actions.
Are the given arguments sufficient to justify the decision?
IN). There is an explanation of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, according to which the actions of the participant robbery or robbery committed by prior agreement by a group of persons are subject to qualification as a group crime, regardless of the fact that the other participants in the crime were not brought to criminal responsibility on the grounds provided for by law. The legal literature raises the following objection to this position:
This theft may be recognized as a group theft if another person who participated in the theft is not held criminally liable due to death or release from criminal liability;
Otherwise, the issue should be resolved when, for example, one of the two members of the group turns out to be insane or a person who has not reached the age required by criminal law. Since the group is one of the forms of complicity, and complicity implies that each of the accomplices is a person capable of bearing criminal responsibility, neither the insane nor the minors can constitute a group as a sign of qualified theft.
Check the consistency of these arguments.