Originalism and the Aristotelian Tradition: Virtue’s Home in Originalism

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Fordham Law Review Pub Date : 2011-08-19 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.1912681
Lee J. Strang
{"title":"Originalism and the Aristotelian Tradition: Virtue’s Home in Originalism","authors":"Lee J. Strang","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1912681","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A concept fundamental to philosophy – virtue – is, with a few notable exceptions, absent from scholarship on constitutional interpretation generally, and originalism in particular. Furthermore, common perceptions of both virtue ethics and originalism have prevented exploration of how incorporating virtue ethics’ insights may make originalism a better theory of constitutional interpretation. This Article fills that void by explaining the many ways in which concepts from virtue ethics are compatible with an originalist theory of constitutional interpretation. More importantly, I show that originalism is more normatively attractive and descriptively accurate when it takes on board virtue ethics’ insights. Originalism must articulate virtue’s role in constitutional interpretation for a number of reasons. First, incorporating the concept of virtue into originalism will give it greater explanatory power. For example, adding the concept of virtue to the mix helps originalism embrace ideals such as judicial craftsmanship. Second, incorporating the concept of virtue into originalism makes originalism more normatively attractive. Originalism has transformed over the past thirty years. Most importantly, originalism has come to acknowledge judicial discretion in constitutional adjudication. An originalism that incorporates the lessons of virtue ethics is able to preserve originalism as a viable theory of constitutional interpretation while, at the same time, continuing to acknowledge judicial discretion. An originalism that incorporates virtue ethics’ insights will give the Constitution’s original meaning its due. Simultaneously, it also gives other factors – such as the practical workability of legal doctrine – their due, all in their proper proportion.","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fordham Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1912681","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

A concept fundamental to philosophy – virtue – is, with a few notable exceptions, absent from scholarship on constitutional interpretation generally, and originalism in particular. Furthermore, common perceptions of both virtue ethics and originalism have prevented exploration of how incorporating virtue ethics’ insights may make originalism a better theory of constitutional interpretation. This Article fills that void by explaining the many ways in which concepts from virtue ethics are compatible with an originalist theory of constitutional interpretation. More importantly, I show that originalism is more normatively attractive and descriptively accurate when it takes on board virtue ethics’ insights. Originalism must articulate virtue’s role in constitutional interpretation for a number of reasons. First, incorporating the concept of virtue into originalism will give it greater explanatory power. For example, adding the concept of virtue to the mix helps originalism embrace ideals such as judicial craftsmanship. Second, incorporating the concept of virtue into originalism makes originalism more normatively attractive. Originalism has transformed over the past thirty years. Most importantly, originalism has come to acknowledge judicial discretion in constitutional adjudication. An originalism that incorporates the lessons of virtue ethics is able to preserve originalism as a viable theory of constitutional interpretation while, at the same time, continuing to acknowledge judicial discretion. An originalism that incorporates virtue ethics’ insights will give the Constitution’s original meaning its due. Simultaneously, it also gives other factors – such as the practical workability of legal doctrine – their due, all in their proper proportion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
原旨主义与亚里士多德传统:美德在原旨主义中的归宿
除了一些值得注意的例外,哲学的一个基本概念——美德——在宪法解释的学术研究中普遍缺失,尤其是原旨主义。此外,对美德伦理和原旨主义的共同看法阻碍了探索如何将美德伦理的见解纳入宪法解释的原旨主义理论。本文通过解释美德伦理概念与宪法解释的原旨主义理论相容的许多方式来填补这一空白。更重要的是,我表明,当原旨主义采纳了美德伦理学的见解时,它在规范上更具吸引力,在描述上更准确。出于一些原因,原旨主义必须阐明美德在宪法解释中的作用。首先,将美德概念纳入原旨主义将使其具有更大的解释力。例如,将美德的概念加入其中,有助于原旨主义拥抱司法工艺等理想。第二,将美德概念纳入原旨主义使原旨主义更具规范性吸引力。原旨主义在过去三十年里发生了变化。最重要的是,原旨主义已经开始承认宪法裁决中的司法自由裁量权。原旨主义结合了美德伦理的教训,能够保留原旨主义作为宪法解释的可行理论,同时继续承认司法自由裁量权。一种融合了美德伦理洞见的原旨主义将赋予宪法应有的原意。同时,它也使其他因素- -例如法律原则的实际可行性- -以适当的比例得到应有的重视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Fordham Law Review is a scholarly journal serving the legal profession and the public by discussing current legal issues. Approximately 75 articles, written by students or submitted by outside authors, are published each year. Each volume comprises six books, three each semester, totaling over 3,000 pages. Managed by a board of up to eighteen student editors, the Law Review is a working journal, not merely an honor society. Nevertheless, Law Review membership is considered among the highest scholarly achievements at the Law School.
期刊最新文献
Using a Hybrid Securities Test to Tackle the Problem of Pyramid Fraud Resurrecting Free Speech Managing the Misinformation Marketplace: The First Amendment and the Fight Against Fake News Airbnb in New York City: whose privacy rights are threatened by a Government Data grab? Free money, but not tax-free: a proposal for the tax treatment of cryptocurrency hard forks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1