ABSTRACT
The chapter demonstrates how kisceral argumentation has much more been used in pre-modern societies as a valid means for backing judicial decisions. It particularly depends on the internal dimension of (moral) conscience and inner highest norms one relies on. Apart from some legal systems that still rely much on religious rules, such as Islamic law, its use in modern times, due to the predominance of very much codified legal systems that, through the prism of moral pluralism, may view such inner conscience as potentially arbitrary, has more or less been confined to the frameworks of rhetorical argumentation, where in addition to explicit legal provisions all sorts of values are argued about in various decisions of highest courts in particular.
