Doctrine and Decisions: Towards Virtuous Decision-Making

Conference paper


Weaver, M. (2023). Doctrine and Decisions: Towards Virtuous Decision-Making.
AuthorsWeaver, M.
TypeConference paper
Abstract

The complexity of circumstances and the interpretivity of the language that labels ethical and legal principles combine to impose responsibility on decision-makers who are confronted by dilemmas (issues about which reasonable and unreasonable people disagree and which have no securely established ‘right answer’). For example, is ‘best interests’ or ‘significant harm’ the proper test for potentially overriding parental decisions about their children’s care? And what, if anything, turns on the difference between those two formulations of an essentially consequentialist concept when set against more deontological conceptions of: parental duties and rights; the private realm; and sanctity of life?
The resurgence (over the last four decades) of interest in virtue ethics — and, more recently, in emotion, empathy and imagination — highlights the role, attitudes and behaviour of decision-makers, whether they be judges or, for example, doctors. Ex hypothesi, their decisions cannot secure majority acceptance by dint only of their decisions’ substantive outcomes. Similarly, decision-makers’ choices and interpretations of justificatory principles will not always convince those whose interests the decisions do not favour. Nevertheless, through ‘virtuous’ processes of (factual) investigation and (normative) consideration — individual and collective open-mindedness — decisions can attract a measure of legitimacy.
Given that principles are essentially contested concepts that often overlap and conflict ─ and that there are deep tensions between rule-based and consequentialist justifications — we look for virtuous judging and virtuous doctoring. Arguably, such virtue consists in processes that — case-by-case — bring imagination to bear. This is not merely the sympathy — or Daniel Kahneman’s ‘fast thinking’ — that comes upon us from ‘being in the same boat’. Rather, it is Kahneman’s ‘slow thinking’ — empathic, effortful reflection that entails ‘imagination’ — ‘the ability to compound things and to resolve them by imagination, to build and to destroy’ (William Fullbeke, 1600).

KeywordsDoctrine, virtue, imagination, process, principles, judging, doctoring
Year2023
Accepted author manuscript
License
File description
A somewaht revised version of the paper presented at the conference. Remains 'a work in progress'.
File Access Level
Open
Publication process dates
Deposited21 Mar 2024
Web address (URL) of conference proceedingshttps://www.slsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/30202-ME-SLS-Programme-Sheet-2023-FINAL.pdf
Additional information

Delivered on 27 June 2023 at Oxford Brookes University, the Conference venue of the SLS 2023 Conference

Permalink -

https://openresearch.lsbu.ac.uk/item/96w36

Download files


Accepted author manuscript
  • 8
    total views
  • 2
    total downloads
  • 6
    views this month
  • 1
    downloads this month

Export as

Related outputs

Changing Numbers and Styles over Six Decades
Weaver, M. (2021). Changing Numbers and Styles over Six Decades. Histories of Legal Education. Online 16 - 16 Nov 2021 Open University Press.
Disjunction, Conjunction and Categories
Weaver, M. (2021). Disjunction, Conjunction and Categories. Society of Legal Scholars Annual Conference 2021. Durham and online 31 Aug - 03 Sep 2021
Doctoring Doctrine
Weaver, M (2020). Doctoring Doctrine. Society of Legal Scholars Conference 2020. online 01 - 04 Sep 2020 The Society of Legal Scholars.
Pegging Levels
Weaver, M. (2019). Pegging Levels. 16th International Congress on Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science and Technology . Prague 05 - 10 Aug 2019
Climb every Montaigne: a citation rhapsody
Weaver, Max (2019). Climb every Montaigne: a citation rhapsody. Central Questions in Law, Society of Legal Scholars 2019. University of Central Lancashire, Preston