- ホーム
- > 洋書
- > ドイツ書
- > Social Sciences, Jurisprudence & Economy
- > Jurisprudence & Law
- > general surveys & lexicons
Description
(Short description)
The book provides a new interdisciplinary approach to disagreement. It brings together the research of philosophers, legal theorists, and social scientists. The philosophical debate on peer disagreement deals with people forming conflicting beliefs, despite sharing the relevant evidence and being equally capable of assessing it. This book examines a real-world phenomenon of peer disagreement: two salient cases sharply dividing society and the courts in the United States and Germany.
(Text)
Philosophers have been puzzled for quite some time by the fact that intelligent and generally reasonable individuals who are equally well-informed and familiar with the same bodies of evidence still disagree with one another. Legal theorists wonder why this is puzzling for philosophers in the first place as disagreement is the very foundation of their work. This book, placed at the intersection of philosophical epistemology and jurisprudence, deals with the theoretical challenges that disagreements between judges create. The philosophical debate is applied to German and American legal disputes. How can such disagreements be integrated into the general philosophical debate on »peer disagreement« and into the legal theory of judicial decisionmaking? How should one deal with such disagreements under the existing legal framework but also in terms of legal policy?
(Table of content)
I. IntroductionPeer Disagreement in Law - Deep Disagreements - Chapter Summary - Limitations II. Supreme Court: Hobby LobbyThe Battle for Universal Health Care - The Hobby Lobby Case - The Disagreements Involved in the Hobby Lobby Case - The Disagreements in Detail - Overview of the Sources of Disagreement - Analysis Disagreements - The Contraception Mandate Debate: Deep DisagreementsIII. Bundesverfassungsgericht: IncestIncest and the Criminal Law - The Incest Case - The Disagreements Involved in Incest - Disagreements in Detail - Overview Sources of Disagreement - Analysis Disagreements - The Incest Debate: Deep DisagreementsIV. Disagreeing JusticesPeer Disagreement and Disagreeing Justices - Ideology and Disagreeing Justices - ConclusionV. Dealing with DisagreementLegal Practice - Legal Policy - Legal Disagreement and PhilosophyReferencesIndex
(Author portrait)
Isabell Villanueva studied law, philosophy and art history at the University of Trier, the Universidad de Sevilla, the Westfälische Wilhelms-University of Münster and the Humboldt University of Berlin. From 2013 to 2018 she did her PhD under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Keil and Prof. Christoph Möllers and worked on »Peer Disagreement in Law« with a two and a half year research stay at New York University and Columbia University sponsored by Paul Boghossian and Joseph Raz. She has been working as a judge in Berlin since 2019.
