scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Doctrine

About: Doctrine is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 21901 publications have been published within this topic receiving 204282 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
01 Sep 1985
TL;DR: The authors argue that relativism is one of those doctrines that have by now been refuted a number of times too often, which is a surer sign that a doctrine embodies some not to be neglected truth than that it should have been refuted again and again.
Abstract: It was Anthony Collins, the friend of John Locke, who remarked that, had it not been for the Boyle Lecturers' annual demonstrations of the existence of God, few people would ever have doubted it.1 It may have been a similar spirit of argumentative contrariness that led me to begin to appreciate fully both the strength and the importance of the case to be made out in favor of at least one version of relativism only after reading some recent philosophical root and branch dismissals of relativism as such.2 But of course I ought not to have been such a late-comer to that appreciation. For relativism, like scepticism, is one of those doctrines that have by now been refuted a number of times too often. Nothing is perhaps a surer sign that a doctrine embodies some not to be neglected truth than that in the course of the history of philosophy it should have been refuted again and again. Genuinely refutable doctrines only need to be refuted once. Philosophical doctrines that are not susceptible of genuine refutation fall into at least two classes. There are some to which, in the light of the rational justification that can be provided for them, we owe simple assent. But there are others to which our assent is or ought to be accorded only with a recognition that what they present is a moment in the development of thought which has to be, if possible, transcended; and this even although we may as yet lack adequate grounds for believing ourselves able to transcend them. Scepticism is one such doctrine; and relativism is another. But no doctrine can be genuinely transcended until we understand what is to be said in its favor. And a first step towards understanding this in the case of relativism must be to show that the purported refutations have largely missed its point and so been misdirected.

71 citations

Book
07 Apr 2011
TL;DR: The Contemporary Military, Strategic, and Security Issues series as mentioned in this paper presents a concise introduction to the evolution, key concepts, discourse, and future options for improved strategic communication in today's U.S. government.
Abstract: This volume in the Contemporary Military, Strategic, and Security Issues series presents a concise introduction to the evolution, key concepts, discourse, and future options for improved strategic communication in today's U.S. government. * Key document excerpts from legislation, proposed legislation, doctrine, reform proposals, and policy documents * A glossary of terms * An annotated bibliography of proposals and recommendations for strategic communication/public diplomacy reform

71 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, it is argued that if the executive wants to interpret ambiguous statutes so as to apply extraterritorially, or to conflict with international law, it should be permitted to do so.
Abstract: A number of judge-made doctrines attempt to promote international comity by reducing possible tensions between the United States and foreign sovereigns. For example, ambiguous statutes are usually interpreted to conform to international law, and statutes are usually not understood to apply outside of the nation's territorial boundaries. The international comity doctrines are best understood as a product of a judicial judgment that in various settings, the cost of American deference to foreign interests is less than the benefits to American interests. Sometimes Congress balances these considerations and incorporates its judgment in a statute, but usually it does not. In such cases, executive interpretations should be permitted to trump the comity doctrines. This conclusion is supported both by considerations of institutional competence and by the distinctive position of the President in the domain of foreign affairs. It follows that if the executive wants to interpret ambiguous statutes so as to apply extraterritorially, or so as to conflict with international law, it should be permitted to do so. The analysis of the interpretive power of the executive follows by reference to the Chevron doctrine in administrative law, which similarly calls for deference to executive interpretation of statutory ambiguities. Sometimes the Chevron doctrine literally applies to such interpretation; sometimes it operates as a valuable analogy.

71 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Jeff McMahan1
TL;DR: For instance, the authors argued that it is permissible to cause bad effects when this is a necessary and proportionate side effect of the pursuit of good ends, provided that they are not intended either as an end or as a means.
Abstract: There are many important moral beliefs that have been comparatively stable over time and across cultures that seem to presuppose that the intention with which one acts can affect the permissibility of one’s action Until about forty years ago, the consensus among moral philosophers was that these beliefs are indeed best explained and justified by the idea that intention is relevant to permissibility, an idea that has traditionally been articulated in the Doctrine of Double Effect This is the doctrine that it can be permissible to bring about bad effects, including the deaths of innocent people, provided that they are not intended either as an end or as a means but are unavoidable and proportionate side effects of the pursuit of good ends Over the last four decades, however, the consensus in support of this view has dissolved Most consequentialists (for example, act-consequentialists) have always maintained that it is permissible to intend to cause bad effects when this is a necessary means of producing the greatest good, so it is unsurprising that the earliest of the recent attacks on the relevance of intention to permissibility came primarily from philosophers who, if not avowedly consequentialists, are close enough to be reasonably mistaken for consequentialists 1 Over the past two decades, however, a number of distinguished deontological and contractualist moral theorists have joined the attack, as have many practitioners of “experimental philosophy,” and their combined efforts have probably reduced Double Effect to a minority position among moral philosophers Between 2000 and 2007, when I was one of the editors of Ethics, I reviewed a number of submissions by junior philosophers in which Double Effect was relegated to a footnote and dismissed as an exploded view that no reasonable person could take seriously I saw that as evidence of a decisive shift in philosophical orthodoxy According to the Doctrine of Double Effect, an act can be impermissible if done with a wrongful intention even if the same act — or at least an act

71 citations

Book
01 Jan 1986
TL;DR: The casebook as mentioned in this paper has an unprecedented focus on Native nation-building, including cutting-edge materials on tribal economies and tribal justice systems unavailable elsewhere, and it retains classic material on the history of federal Indian law and policy, including the medieval origins of the "Doctrine of Discovery," and the shifting eras of Indian law leading to the current Nation-building era.
Abstract: This federal Indian law casebook has an unprecedented focus on Native Nation-building, including cutting-edge materials on tribal economies and tribal justice systems unavailable elsewhere The Sixth edition retains classic material on the history of federal Indian law and policy, including the medieval origins of the "Doctrine of Discovery," and the shifting eras of Indian law leading to the current Nation-building era The book covers the federal tribal relationship; tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction; Indian religion and culture; water rights; treaty rights; rights of Alaska natives and native Hawaiians; and international legal perspectives

71 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
Politics
263.7K papers, 5.3M citations
84% related
Argument
41K papers, 755.9K citations
83% related
Democracy
108.6K papers, 2.3M citations
82% related
Human rights
98.9K papers, 1.1M citations
80% related
Ideology
54.2K papers, 1.1M citations
78% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
20231,274
20222,944
2021388
2020578
2019615
2018677