The doctrine of absurdity is a legal theory in American courts. [32]: 234-239 A type of absurdity known as “writer`s error” occurs when a simple text correction is required to correct an obvious spelling mistake, such as a misspelled word. [32]: 234-235 Another type of absurdity, so-called “evaluative absurdity,” occurs when a legal regulation “makes no sense in terms of content” despite proper spelling and grammar. An example would be a law that falsely states that a winning party, not a losing party, pays the reasonable legal fees of the other party. [32]: 235-237 In order to remain within the framework of textualism and not to advance further in purposivism, the doctrine is constrained by two limiting principles: “. The absurdity and injustice of applying the provision to the case would be so monstrous that all mankind would unite without hesitation in rejecting the application.”[33] and the absurdity must be capable of being corrected.” by modifying the text in a relatively simple way.” [34] [32]: 237-239 This doctrine is considered consistent with examples of historical common sense. [35] Michel de Montaigne, father of the essay and modern skepticism, argued that the process of shortening is stupid and produces absurdity: “Any shortening of a good book is a foolish shortening. Absurdity cannot be cured. satisfied with himself that any reason cannot reasonably be. [9] G. E.
Moore, an English analytic philosopher, cited superficially absurd statements such as: “I was in the photos last Tuesday, but I don`t believe it.” They can be true and logically consistent and do not contradict each other on closer examination of the user`s linguistic intent. Wittgenstein notes that in some unusual circumstances, the absurdity itself disappears in such statements, because there are cases where “It`s raining but I don`t believe it” can make sense, that is, what seems absurd is not absurd. [13] The rule of absurdity is a rule in logic as used by Patrick Suppes in Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Acts. [40] Reductio ad absurdum, reduced to absurdity, is a method of proof in polemics, logic and mathematics, where the assumption that a sentence is true leads to absurdity; A sentence is assumed to be true and this is used to infer a sentence that is known to be false, so the original sentence must have been false. It is also a style of reasoning in polemics in which a position is proven false or “absurd” by adopting and arguing in order to arrive at something that is known to be considered false or against common sense; it is used by Plato to argue against other philosophical positions. [37] An absurdity condition is used in the logic of model transformations. [38] In law, strictly literal interpretations of statutes can lead to seemingly absurd results. The doctrine of absurdity holds that, in such cases, reasonable interpretations should be preferred to literal readings. Under the doctrine of absurdity, U.S.
courts have interpreted laws contrary to their plain meaning in order to avoid absurd legal conclusions. [5] [6] [7] He is opposed to literalism. [8] Absurdity arises when language deviates from common sense, is too poetic, or when one cannot defend oneself with language and reason. In Aristotle`s book Rhetoric, Aristotle discusses the situations in which absurdity is used and how it affects the use of persuasion. According to Aristotle, the idea that a person is unable to convince someone with his words is absurd. [11] Any unnecessary information about the case is inappropriate and makes the speech unclear. If the speech becomes too vague; The reasoning of his case is not convincing, which makes the argument absurd. [12] In such situations, the doctrine of absurdity allows the court to disregard the plain language of the law in order to avoid an absurd and unfair result.
Theoretically, the doctrine of absurdity is accepted in all States; In practice, however, it often fails to protect the accused from absurd results such as the one described above. Under the doctrine of absurdity, a court will interpret a law by applying the clear meaning of the words used, unless doing so would lead to absurd or absurd results that Parliament could not have envisaged. See, for example, El Paso Educ. Initiative, Inc. v. Amex Props., LLC, 63 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1166, 2020 Tex. LEXIS 436, at *14 (May 22, 2020), citing Cadena Comercial USA Corp. v.
Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm`n, 518 pp.3d 318, 325 (Tex. 2017). Although the rule is often cited, it is difficult to find cases where a court has declared the doctrine applicable. Francis Bacon, an early proponent of empiricism and the scientific method, argued that absurdity is a necessary part of scientific progress and should not always be ridiculed. He went on to say that bold new ways of thinking and bold assumptions often lead to absurdity: “For when absurdity is the object of laughter, doubt yourself, but great audacity is rare without some absurdity.” [10] In City of Forth Worth v. Rylie, 63 Tex. Sup.
Ct. J. 1036, 2020 Tex. LEXIS 395, at *15 (May 8, 2020), the Texas Supreme Court was asked to unravel “a spider`s web of questions” to decide whether a state bill regulating coinage machines preempts a Fort Worth ordinance regulating the eight lines. The eight liners are video slots that pay coupons that can be redeemed for a prize or the right to play on another machine. The machine operators argued that the city`s interpretation of the law led to an absurd result. The Texas Supreme Court concluded that their reasoning did not satisfy the doctrine. “We will not interpret the language of a law as producing `manifestly absurd results,` but this bar of absurdity `is high and should be,` because mere curiosity is not the same as absurdity.” Id. at *15, citing Combs v. Health Care Servs Corp., 401 S.W.3d 623, 630 (Tex. 2013). In his essay The Absurd, Thomas Nagel analyzed the eternal absurdity of human life.
The absurdity in life becomes evident when we realize that we take our lives seriously, while perceiving that there is a certain arbitrariness in everything we do. He suggests never ceasing to seek the absurd.