I will assume that such approaches differ fundamentally from practical approaches, in that the former have the mere aim of seeking 'truthfulness' in terms of rational justification, coherence, logical reasoning (consistency) and conceptual clarity, while the latter do not [ 6].
The next issues to consider are (1) what is to be made coherent in coherence accounts of legal reasoning, and (2) what role coherence plays in explaining or justifying judicial decisions on such accounts.
Regarding the question of what is to be made coherent in coherence accounts of legal reasoning, Raz 1994a contends that coherence accounts, when applied to law, require a 'base' or something which is to be made coherent, which differs in character in some crucial respects from the sort of base which features in coherence accounts in other areas of philosophy.
The value of coherence in legal reasoning is addressed further in Section 3 of this entry.
Where such differences have a bearing upon issues pertaining to the role of interpretation and coherence in legal reasoning, they will be mentioned in the text.
The entry on Interpretation and Coherence in Legal Reasoning addresses theories of interpretation [see also the entries On The Nature of Law and Naturalism in Legal Philosophy].
As this entry seeks to illuminate the role of coherence in legal reasoning, the emphasis here is on coherence accounts of adjudication, and on examining the role which coherence plays in courts' reasoning about how to decide cases according to law.
In considering the role of coherence in legal reasoning, a final point to mention is that of how much of the law is to be made coherent according to various jurisprudential accounts granting a role to considerations of coherence.
Raz (1994a), who contends that coherence in legal reasoning is sometimes desirable, but certainly defeasible, poses essentially the same dilemma, but seems to place the burden of proof on those grasping the other horn of it.
Two central questions must be addressed in considering the role of coherence in legal reasoning: what is the nature of the coherence relation which features in coherence accounts of adjudication, and what role does coherence play in explaining or justifying judicial decisions in such accounts?
