On Justification

From this point of view, the key problem is how to justify the choices between (semantically and/or legally) the possible alternatives. Having achieved this task, the scholar gives an answer to the question: why is this and not some other interpretation the proper one? The general form of the justificatory statements is as follows:

Pj: On the grounds G, the proper interpretation for L is Li.

As far as the type and structure of the justification are concerned, two viewpoints have to be kept distinct - i.e., the internal and external justification. They are closely connected to the notion of rationality. Later on, the logic of internal justification - that is, deductive rationality - is called L-rationality in order to distinguish it from the logic of external justification called D-rationality (discursive rationality). The latter can be defined as a group of standards that makes a fair and free compromise (and sometimes a fair consensus) possible on any socially relevant question. As we will see, the rational discourse can also produce two or more well-grounded answers. Vice versa, there are no objective criteria or “final grounds” with which it could be claimed that one of the interpretative statements has better grounds than the others. In a way, discourse cannot move outside itself. All the arguments that can be presented are already included in the (possible) evaluation of which answer is better.