Abstract
“Virtue Jurisprudence: Towards an Aretaic Theory of Law” explores the implications of contemporary virtue ethics and virtue epistemology for legal theory. The topics explored include a virtue-centered theory of the function of law and an aretaic account of judging.
Published in Revista da Faculdade de Direito de Conselheiro Lafaiete, Nova fase, 2007, 3. See Introduction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The third topic, a theory of the nature of law, will not be addressed in this essay.
- 2.
See United States v. Aluminum Co. of America., 148 F.2d 416, 433 (2d Cir. 1945) (opinion by Learned Hand, J., stating, “It is idle to try to define the meaning of the phrase ‘clearly erroneous’; all that can be profitably said is that an appellate court, though it will hesitate less to reverse the finding of a judge than that of an administrative tribunal or of a jury, will nevertheless reverse it most reluctantly and only when well persuaded.”).
- 3.
See, e.g., Jones v. Strayhorn, 159 Tex. 421, 321 S.W.2d 290 (1959) (“The mere fact or circumstance that a trial judge may decide a matter within his discretionary authority in a manner different from what an appellate judge would decide if placed in a similar circumstance does not demonstrate that an abuse of discretion has occurred.”).
- 4.
See Ford v. Ford, 68 Conn. App. 173, 187, 789 A.2d 1104, 1112 (2002) (indicating that a difference of judgment does not justify reversal of a child custody decision absent “abuse of discretion.”).
Bibliography
Anscombe, G.E.M. 1958. Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy 33(124): 1–19.
Aristotle. 1955. Nicomachean ethics. Trans. J.A.K. Thomson and H. Tredennick, ed. J. Barnes. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Balkin, Jack M., and Sanford Levinson. 2001. Understanding the constitutional revolution. Virginia Law Review 87(6): 1045–1109.
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s empire. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press.
Ford v. Ford, 68 Conn. App. 173, 789 A.2d 1104 (2002).
Hobbes, Thomas. 1994. Leviathan. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Hursthouse, Rosalind. 1999. On virtue ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jones v. Strayhorn, 159 Tex. 421, 321 S.W.2d 290 (1959).
Kaplow, Louis, and Steven Shavell. 2002. Fairness versus welfare. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kraut, Richard. 2002. Aristotle: Political philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Locke, John. 1988. Two treatises of government. Ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, John. 2001. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press.
Shiner, Roger A. 1994. Aristotle’s theory of equity. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 27(4): 1245–1264.
United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Solum, L.B. (2013). Virtue Jurisprudence: Towards an Aretaic Theory of Law. In: Huppes-Cluysenaer, L., Coelho, N. (eds) Aristotle and The Philosophy of Law: Theory, Practice and Justice. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 23. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6031-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6031-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6030-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6031-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)