Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Regulating Toxic SubstancesA Philosophy of Science and the Law$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Carl F. Cranor

Print publication date: 1993

Print ISBN-13: 9780195074369

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: October 2011

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195074369.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 17 November 2018

Epistemic and Moral Justification

Epistemic and Moral Justification

Chapter:
(p.152) 5 Epistemic and Moral Justification
Source:
Regulating Toxic Substances
Author(s):

Kristin Shrader-frechette General

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195074369.003.0006

This chapter continues the argument of why ideal levels of scientific accuracy should not be applied in torts and administrative law by focusing on two issues. Firstly, the standards of evidence ought to be appropriate to the institutional context. Secondly, justice requires that priority be given to avoiding false negatives and underregulation. One requires justification of the epistemic presupposition, the other, justification of the underlying moral view. The first issue states that the burden of proof that must be satisfied in order to make a particular institutional decision will depend at least in large part upon the kinds of mistakes one seeks to avoid. For example, criminal law stringently protects against convicting innocent people. To avoid this, the equivalent of false positives, the state must overcome a high burden of proof to establish its case. By contrast, in screening patients for life-threatening diseases we might seek very much to avoid missing someone who has the disease, to avoid false negatives. The second issue comes from the premise that in the common law of torts, distributive issues are not decided as a matter of consistent theory but are developed by means of case-by-case adjudication between two parties. Although judges try to produce consistent decisions over time, but they do not always succeed. If the law is not necessarily consistent, it is especially important to have a better view of more fundamental and consistent normative principles to guide epistemology.

Keywords:   Daniel-Rawls, health care protection, utilitarianism, moral justification, epistemic justification

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .