The phenomenon of luck poses a problem for ethics for two reasons. First, it makes it difficult to formulate homogeneous moral judgments for two or more actions which seem to be similar to each other in every morally relevant aspect except of some successful or unfortunate events that take place in one case and not in the other. The occurrence of these events wasn’t under control of any of the agents but for external observers it tends to be the basis (...) for more rigorous or more tolerant moral judgment in one case and not in the other. Second, luck can affect our sense of life through success or failure of ours existentially important life projects. This fact suggests necessity of conditions for morally permissible relying on luck in formulating and pursuing one’s life project. In this paper I present possibilities of applying main views on luck to resolve the above problems. (shrink)

Much legal research focuses on understanding how judicial decision-makers exercise their discretion. In this paper we examine the notion of legal or judicial discretion, and weaker and stronger forms of discretion. At all times our goal is to build cognitive models of the exercise of discretion, with a view to building computer software to model and primarily support decision-making. We observe that discretionary decision-making can best be modeled using three independent axes: bounded and unbounded, defined and undefined, and binary and (...) continuous. Examples of legal tasks are given from each of the eight ensuing octants and we conclude by saying what this model shows about current legal trends. We should stress that our taxonomy has been based on our observations of how discretionary legal decisions are made. No claim is made that our model is either complete (providing advice in every domain) or exact, but it does help knowledge engineers construct legal decision support systems in discretionary domains. (shrink)

Tolerance, the mere “putting up” with disapproved behaviour and practices, is often considered a too negative and passive engagement with difference in the liberal constitutional state. In response, liberal thinkers have either discarded tolerance, or assimilated it to the moral and legal precepts of liberal justice. In contradistinction to these approaches I argue that there is something distinctive and valuable about tolerance that should not be undermined by more ambitious, rights-based models of social cooperation. I develop a conception of tolerance (...) as a complementary principle and an interim value that is neither incompatible with, nor reducible to, rights-based liberalism. Tolerance represents a particular, non-communitarian expression of the general dictum that the liberal state, having released its citizens into liberty, rests on social presuppositions it cannot itself guarantee. (shrink)