Reasonableness of Limits, Reasonableness as Limit (in Legal Interpretation)

Abstract This short essay aims at discussing the opposition between two different views on limits in legal interpretations: I will call them (i) “no-limits option” and (ii) “pro-limits option”. As for (i), it is based a widely diffused understanding of individual freedom: that an unceasing breaking all limits. idea involves nowadays not only number once accepted moral limits, nor material or social suffered by people, but also conceptual determinations. (ii), conjecture limit would be condition “no longer, yet”—as such, matter authentic freedom. The can easily lead, interpretation, to radical contextualism according which there unlimited meanings syntactically semantically same text. option”, contrary, maintains existence reasonable, reasonableness itself interpretation. In other words, undetermined space yet” consist open exploration beyond through appropriate procedures reason-giving. According reasonably common core-meaning text should sought when cases application vary—and precisely nature Arguments favor this thesis found Western philosophy from Aristotle contemporary neurosciences (according natural ). A remarkable consequence my discussion these options deals with concept normativity, given option conceives normativity as expression (the one establish infringe limits), whereas links reasonableness.