A Plea for Moderate Optimization: On the Structure of Principles as Interpersonal Reasons

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F68378122%3A_____%2F17%3A00509694" target="_blank" >RIV/68378122:_____/17:00509694 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

A Plea for Moderate Optimization: On the Structure of Principles as Interpersonal Reasons

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The Theory of Principles (Prinzipientheore), which underpins the account of proportionality, has been vilified for embodying a teleological account of constitutional rights which fails to accommodate their core function as deontological constraints. In this paper I will make a modest effort to overcome the dichotomy between teleology and deontology, at least within the scope of the proportionality debate. The paper points out that a relaxation of the tension between agent-neutral and agent-relative reasons can contribute to a better understanding of the claim that legal principles are optimisation requirements. The claim should simply be understood as stating that constitutional principles are formulations of the same abstract ideal of mutual recognition among persons, which can generate consistency amongst actions produced by plural agents. A notable conclusion is that proportionality is better understood in terms of determination of abstract normative reasons (principles) than in terms of balancing between disparate or conflicting standards.

Název v anglickém jazyce

A Plea for Moderate Optimization: On the Structure of Principles as Interpersonal Reasons

Popis výsledku anglicky

The Theory of Principles (Prinzipientheore), which underpins the account of proportionality, has been vilified for embodying a teleological account of constitutional rights which fails to accommodate their core function as deontological constraints. In this paper I will make a modest effort to overcome the dichotomy between teleology and deontology, at least within the scope of the proportionality debate. The paper points out that a relaxation of the tension between agent-neutral and agent-relative reasons can contribute to a better understanding of the claim that legal principles are optimisation requirements. The claim should simply be understood as stating that constitutional principles are formulations of the same abstract ideal of mutual recognition among persons, which can generate consistency amongst actions produced by plural agents. A notable conclusion is that proportionality is better understood in terms of determination of abstract normative reasons (principles) than in terms of balancing between disparate or conflicting standards.

Druh

C - Kapitola v odborné knize

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA15-23955S" target="_blank" >GA15-23955S: ROLE PRINCIPU PROPORCIONALITY V ROZHODOVÁNÍ ÚSTAVNÍCH SOUDŮ</a><br>

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2017

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název knihy nebo sborníku

Rechtsphilosophie und Grundrechtstheorie

ISBN

978-3-16-155626-5

Počet stran výsledku

16

Strana od-do

395-410

Počet stran knihy

810

Název nakladatele

Mohr Siebeck

Místo vydání

Tübingen

Kód UT WoS kapitoly

—