A Fortiori: Definition and Meaning

When The Court states an argument as ‘a fortiori’ it generally suggests one argument is dependent on another that is so strong that it ultimately is unanswerable. However, an argument a fortiori can be rebutted by questioning if such a conclusion can actually be drawn from the stronger argument. This refers to a circumstance in which if one argument or thing presented is true, it can be inferred that another is considerably more certain to be true.

In simpler words If it has been proved that a person is deceased, it is equally or more certain that the person is not breathing.

What is A Fortiori?

A Fortiori is a Latin term which basically means for a better reason. It is frequently used to transition from a less certain judgment or argument to a more obvious conclusion that follows immediately from the other proposition.

Its usage is dated back to the Roman era where the orators used the term to strengthen arguments and make decisive points. In modern legal discourse a fortiori is used to explain the most compelling rationale for deducing one truth from another. Which implies the term is used to state that if one fact is true, a fact more evident must also be true.

Illustration of A Fortiori

• If it is proven that a person commits a crime by taking a minor item, that same individual will be held more accountable for stealing something of larger value.

• If a person is judged guilty for carelessness when driving a car, they will be held significantly more liable if they drive recklessly.

Important Case Laws

People's Union for Civil Liberties and Ors. vs. Union of India (16.12.2003 − SC):The People's Union of Civil Liberties challenged the constitutionality of a 1951 law that said that political candidates were not allowed to divulge any information that was not required by law. The Indian Supreme Court declared that the right not to vote is protected under the Indian Constitution as part of the fundamental right to free speech and expression. The action was filed as a challenge to government rules requiring a presiding officer to make a note anytime a voter elected not to vote for any of the candidates. The People's Union for Civil Liberties argued that this practise was unconstitutional.

Smt. Ujjam Bai vs. State of U.P (28.04.1961): The Petitioner was carrying on a business of producing bidis in multiple states, he was registered as a dealer under the UP Sales Tax Act, and he filed a Petition under Article 32 of the Indian constitution because the State violated his Fundamental Right to carry on the business. An order of assessment made by officials of the authority under a taxing statute that is intra−vires would not be in violation of article 19(1)(g) only because it is based on a micro interpretation of a provision of the act or a notification issued thereunder. As a result, the petition was dismissed because the tribunal made a decision that was contrary to its jurisdiction.

Bobby vs. Van Hook; 558 US 4 (2009): A state court in Ohio convicted Robert J. Van Hook of aggravated murder and robbery and sentenced him to death. Mr. Van Hook sought habeas corpus relief in Ohio federal district court after exhausted his state court procedures. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in a per curiam ruling that the Sixth Circuit erred in giving Mr. Van Hook habeas corpus relief for not a very effective assistance of counsel. The Sixth Circuit erred, according to the Court, in using the American Bar Association's guidelines of 2003.

Conclusion

It is true that fortiori analysis is necessary when making a significant decision or even proving an argument. Although, it can also give you an unfavourable result, especially if you don't pay attention to the rule(s) that apply to this analysis. The mode has some biases and prejudices that hinder the use of a fortiori in decision−making, as well as certain argumentative manoeuvres that facilitate the practical use of this argument in everyday reasoning.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the distinction between a posteriori and a fortiori reasoning?

Ans: The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" allude to how or on what basis a proposition can be known. In general, a proposition is known a priori if it is known independently of experience, and a proposition is known a posteriori; if it is known based on experience.

Q: In what context would you utilise a fortiori?

Ans: It could not have been finished in a week, a fortiori not in a day.If you can afford a car then, a fortiori, you can afford a bicycle.

Q: What is a fortiori?

Ans: "The idea behind this phrase is simple: if you don't trust your child to ride a bike safely, you don't trust him to drive a car."

Q: What exactly is the inverse of a fortiori argument?

Ans: The converse, less well−known and less frequently used argument is a minore ad maius, which suggests an inference from smaller to larger.

Q: What is the etymology of the term a fortiori?

Ans: "From the stronger" originates from the Latin.