Advertisement

Impartial Sympathy as an Implication of Agapic Casuistry

  • Alexander Nikolaevich Shytov
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 54)

Abstract

Impartial sympathy is the main implication of agapic casuistry in judicial decision-making. The principle of love implies that judges administering law should pursue the good of the people affected by their decisions. No one can do good to the other without the knowledge of the other’s needs, therefore sympathy judgement is based on the knowledge of the personality of the people affected by decision. It is opposed to judgements which disregard the uniqueness of the individual.

Keywords

Moral Judgement Legal Rule Moral Belief Legal Reason Moral Intuition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Outka G. Agape: An Ethical Analysis. — New Haven: Yale University Press. 1972. — P. 198.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ramsay P. Basic Christian Ethics. — London: SCM Press, 1950. — P. 116.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. — Transl. by W. Butler. — London: Simmonds & Hill, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Finnis J. Natural Law and Natural Rights. — Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. — P. 23.Google Scholar
  5. 4a.
    Beyleveld D, Brownsword R. Law as a Moral Judgement. — London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1986. — pp. 119, 133.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    John 10: 1–10.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    Tasioulas J. The Paradox of Equity. in: 55(3) Cambridge Law Journal (1996), p. 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 7.
    Mat. 7, 12.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    Outka G. Agape: An Ethical Analysis. — New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972. — P. 311.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. — I–II. 90. 2.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    George R. P. Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality. — Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Henderson, L. ‘Legality and Empathy’ in: Feminist Jurisprudence. — Oxford University Press, 1993. — pp. 244–281.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    ibid., p. 246.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    Brown v. Board of Education. 347. U.S. 483. (1954).Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Shapiro v. Thompson. — 392 U.S. 920. (1968).Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Henderson, L. ‘Legality and Empathy’. — P. 251.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
  18. 17.
    Tasioulas J. The Paradox of Equity. in: 55(3) Cambridge Law Journal (1996), p. 460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 18.
    Henderson, L. ‘Legality and Empathy’. — P. 249.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    Brown v. Board of Education. 347. U.S. 483. (1954).Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    Plessy v. Ferguson. !63 U.S. 537. (1896).Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    Brown v. Board of Education. 347. U.S. 494. (1954).Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    Hanbury & Martin. Modern Equity. — Sweet & Maxwell, 1997. — P. 4.Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    Toulmin S. ‘Equity and Principles.’ in: Oscoode Hall Law Journal. — 20 (1982) — P. 8.Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    Gladstone F. Charity, Law and Social Justice. — London: Bedford Square Press, 1982 — pp. 30ff.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    ibid., p. 171.Google Scholar
  27. 26.
    Equity in the World’s Legal Systems: A Comparative Study. — Ed. by R. A. Newman. — Brussels: Etablissements Emile Bruylant, 1973.Google Scholar
  28. 27.
    Lord Clyde. Equity and Law. — Edinburgh: BBC, 1964. — P. 19.Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    Tasioulas J. Justice, Equity and Law. in: Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. — London: Routledge, 1998. — Vol. 5. pp. 147–153.Google Scholar
  30. 29.
    ibid., p. 147.Google Scholar
  31. 30.
  32. 31.
    Fuller L. The Morality of Law. — Yale University Press, 1978. — P. 46.Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    ibid., p. 157.Google Scholar
  34. 33.
    Tasioulas J. The Paradox of Equity. in: 55(3) Cambridge Law Journal (1996), p. 460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 34.
    Frank J. Law and the Modern Mind. — London: Stevens & Sons, 1949. — P. 34.Google Scholar
  36. 35.
    Hart H.L.A. The Concept of Law. — Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. — P. 128.Google Scholar
  37. 36.
    ibid., p. 135.Google Scholar
  38. 37.
    ibid., p. 121.Google Scholar
  39. 38.
    Raz J. The Authority of Law. — Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. — P. 47.Google Scholar
  40. 39.
    ibid., p. 49.Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    Hart H.L.A. The Concept of Law. — Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. — P. 135.Google Scholar
  42. 41.
    European Convention on Human Rights. Art. 3 5(1).Google Scholar
  43. 42.
    Interviews with John Mahoney, Stanley Naismith, Maija Junker-Schreckenberg on 8–12th of October, 1998.Google Scholar
  44. 43.
    Mentes and Others v. Turkey. — Judgement of 28 November 1997. — European Court of Human Rights. RJD 1997.Google Scholar
  45. 44.
    Twining W., Miers D. How To Do Things With Rules. — 4th edit. — London: Butterworth, 1999. — P. 331.Google Scholar
  46. 45.
    Cross R. Precedent in English Law. — Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. — P. 129.Google Scholar
  47. 46.
    Twining W., Miers D. How To Do Things With Rules. — P. 316.Google Scholar
  48. 47.
    Oldendorf fv. Tradax Export. [1974] A.C. 479.Google Scholar
  49. 48.
    Ibid, at 489.Google Scholar
  50. 49.
    The Aello. [1961] A.C. 135.Google Scholar
  51. 50.
    Leonis Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Rank Ltd. [1908] 1 K.B. 499.Google Scholar
  52. 51.
    Oldendorffv. Tradax Export. [1974] A.C. 479. at 533. (emphasis added).Google Scholar
  53. 52.
    Miliangos v. George Frank. [1976] A.C. 443.Google Scholar
  54. 53.
    Schorsch Meier G.m.b.H. v. Hennin. [1975] Q.B. 416.Google Scholar
  55. 54.
    In Re United Railwavs of Havana and Regla Warehouses Ltd. [19611 A.C. 1007.Google Scholar
  56. 55.
    Miliangos v. George Frank. [1976] A.C. 443; at 465.Google Scholar
  57. 56.
    Twining W., Miers D. How To Do Things With Rules. — 4th edit. — London: Butterworth, 1999. — P. 325.Google Scholar
  58. 57.
  59. 58.
    Plessy v. Ferguson. !63 U.S. 537. (1896).Google Scholar
  60. 59.
    There is an extensive literature on the effects of incorporation of the Convention on domestic law in England and Scotland. The consideration of this problem in detail is beyond scope of this book. For general study the effects of incorporation on judicial decision-making see: Coppel J. The Human Rights Act 1998: Enforcing the European Convention in the Domestic Courts. — Chichester: Wiley, 1999.Google Scholar
  61. 59a.
    Human Rights and Scots Law. — Ed by A. Loux and W. Finnie: Oxford: Hart, 1999.Google Scholar
  62. 60.
    Twining W., Miers D. How To Do Things With Rules. — P. 283.Google Scholar
  63. 61.
    Ibid., p. 283ff.Google Scholar
  64. 62.
    Burton S. Judging in Good Faith. — Cambridge University Press, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 63.
  66. 64.
  67. 65.
  68. 66.
  69. 67.
  70. 68.
  71. 69.
    ibid., pp. 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 70.
    See: Buckley R. ‘Law’s Boundaries and the Challenge of Illegality.’ in: Legal Structures: Boundary Issues Between Legal Categories. — Chichester: Wiley, 1996. — P. 236.Google Scholar
  73. 71.
    Tinsley v. Milligan. [1994] A.C. 340. At 363, 369.Google Scholar
  74. 72.
    See: Bell J. ‘Policy Arguments in Statutory Interpretation’. in Legal Reasoning and Statutory Interpretation. Ed. by R. Summers. — Arnhem: Gouda Quint, 1989. — pp. 72–73.Google Scholar
  75. 73.
    Finnis J. Natural Law and Natural Rights. — Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. — P. 106.Google Scholar
  76. 74.
    ibid., p. 107.Google Scholar
  77. 75.
    D’Arcy M.C. The Mind and Heart of Love. — London: Faber, 1947. — pp. 9ff.Google Scholar
  78. 76.
    Ramsay P. Basic Christian Ethics. — London: SCM Press, 1950. — P. 92.Google Scholar
  79. 77.
    ibid., p. 99.Google Scholar
  80. 78.
    Burton S. Judging in Good Faith. — Cambridge University Press, 1992. — P. 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 79.
    Ramsay P. Basic Christian Ethics. — London: SCM Press, 1950. — P. 100.Google Scholar
  82. 80.
    Mat. 5, 43–44.Google Scholar
  83. 81.
    Pound R. ‘Mechanical Jurisprudence’. — in Landmarks of Law. — Ed. by R. Henson. — N.Y.: Harper, 1960. — pp. 101–116.Google Scholar
  84. 82.
    Minow M. ‘Justice Engendered.’ in Feminist Jurisprudence. — Oxford University Press 1993 — P 241Google Scholar
  85. 83.
    ibid., p. 229.Google Scholar
  86. 84.
    Dworkin R. A Matter of Principle. — Harvard University Press, 1985. — P. 1.Google Scholar
  87. 85.
    Law — Some Christian Perspectives. — Ed. by J. Cundy. — Leicester: Christian Lawyers Fellowship, 1988. — P. 46.Google Scholar
  88. 86.
    Il’in I.A. O Suschnosti Pravosoznaniia. (On Essence of Legal Consciousness). — Moscow: Rarog, 1993. — P. 225. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. I–II. 95. 1.Google Scholar
  89. 87.
    Smith A. Lectures on Jurisprudence. — Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. — II.152.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Nikolaevich Shytov
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of LawStavropol State UniversityStavropolRussia
  2. 2.Commercial Law and EthicsMae Jo UniversityChiang MaiThailand

Personalised recommendations