Verdictive Foreseeability

Max Weaver

Verdictive Foreseeability

Max Weaver

Research output: Contribution to conference › Paper › peer-review

Abstract

Verdicts state conclusions rather than reasons. Official verdicts can ‘make something so’. In holding individuals responsible, foreseeability verdicts reflect folk morality. In factive mode they can be true or false. In attributive mode they are normative. Many other legal concepts exhibit similar ambivalence. Status, context and Austinian illocutionary force are needed to distinguish these modes. Verdicts could appear at each stage of algorithmic reasoning but reasons contributing to one verdict should not reappear at a later stage. But neither folk morality nor legal reasoning are algorithmic.

Original language	English
Publication status	Published - 1 Sept 2015
Event	Society of Legal Scholars Annual Conference 2015 - Duration: 9 Jan 2015 → …

Conference

Conference	Society of Legal Scholars Annual Conference 2015
Period	9/01/15 → …

Cite this

@conference{b8df3ca4b38c40a8b9b2ed24f5448357,

title = "Verdictive Foreseeability",

abstract = "Verdicts state conclusions rather than reasons. Official verdicts can {\textquoteleft}make something so{\textquoteright}. In holding individuals responsible, foreseeability verdicts reflect folk morality. In factive mode they can be true or false. In attributive mode they are normative. Many other legal concepts exhibit similar ambivalence. Status, context and Austinian illocutionary force are needed to distinguish these modes. Verdicts could appear at each stage of algorithmic reasoning but reasons contributing to one verdict should not reappear at a later stage. But neither folk morality nor legal reasoning are algorithmic.",

author = "Max Weaver",

year = "2015",

month = sep,

day = "1",

language = "English",

note = "Society of Legal Scholars Annual Conference 2015 ; Conference date: 09-01-2015",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - Verdictive Foreseeability

AU - Weaver, Max

PY - 2015/9/1

Y1 - 2015/9/1

N2 - Verdicts state conclusions rather than reasons. Official verdicts can ‘make something so’. In holding individuals responsible, foreseeability verdicts reflect folk morality. In factive mode they can be true or false. In attributive mode they are normative. Many other legal concepts exhibit similar ambivalence. Status, context and Austinian illocutionary force are needed to distinguish these modes. Verdicts could appear at each stage of algorithmic reasoning but reasons contributing to one verdict should not reappear at a later stage. But neither folk morality nor legal reasoning are algorithmic.

AB - Verdicts state conclusions rather than reasons. Official verdicts can ‘make something so’. In holding individuals responsible, foreseeability verdicts reflect folk morality. In factive mode they can be true or false. In attributive mode they are normative. Many other legal concepts exhibit similar ambivalence. Status, context and Austinian illocutionary force are needed to distinguish these modes. Verdicts could appear at each stage of algorithmic reasoning but reasons contributing to one verdict should not reappear at a later stage. But neither folk morality nor legal reasoning are algorithmic.

M3 - Paper

T2 - Society of Legal Scholars Annual Conference 2015

Y2 - 9 January 2015

ER -

Verdictive Foreseeability

Abstract

Conference

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this