Legal reasoning frequently relies on concepts without clear boundaries. Classical binary logic cannot adequately represent such “open‑textured” standards. This study explores “Fuzzy Logic” as a framework to bridge the rigidity of law and the fluidity of reality.
Adopting an analytical-critical approach, this paper examines computational and qualitative dimensions of applying fuzzy logic in legal reasoning. First section demonstrates how algorithmic modeling - via membership functions and fuzzy rules - aligns “fact description” and “inference” with gradual legal realities. Second section shifts focus to methodological (qualitative) level, analyzing the model's capacity to manage "hard cases" in light of Hart and Dworkin's theories. In this context, by re-examining the "conflict of ownership rights" ( Article 132 of Civil Code), mechanism of "argumentative calibration" is elucidated as a qualitative alternative to numerical weighting. Finally, through a pathological analysis of this approach, fundamental challenges such as "judicial legitimacy" and risk of “subjectivity” are critiqued, and solutions to overcome these obstacles - like consensus-building - are addressed.
Findings indicate that transition from a binary view to a logic of degrees facilitates "transparent management of vagueness" in hard cases. Consequently, key contribution of fuzzy approach is providing a "transparent analytical map" of decision-making process wherein judicial discretion is not eliminated but rendered structured. The ultimate objective is to define role of fuzzy thinking as a "complementary methodology" and a "roadmap for the future" that, without claiming to replace human judgment, assists in enhancing accuracy and fairness in legal reasoning.