Maintaining core moral beliefs requires faith, not causal explanation

Evidence

Does Patterson believe in the pricelessness of human beings because, of all earthly things, human beings are capable of love? To maintain this belief in the face of the inevitable pricing of human worth requires faith. Does Patterson believe that our decisions are impossible to explain causally because they are the products of free will? To maintain this belief in the face of the usual modern explanation requires faith. Does he believe that our legal decisions are inevitably moral because-not in spite of-the factladen, culture-laden nature of legal judgment that cannot be captured by an external moral calculus (because the decider is also the critic, the observer is the participant) and thus requires an account be given in its own terms, which alone can satisfy the conscience? — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 896

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Distinguishes ‘faith’ (belief maintained against explanatory pressure) from ‘conviction’/‘explanation’ — a conceptual contrast central to Bobbitt’s epistemology of legal judgment.
  • XREF: connects to: Religious conviction subordinates empirical evidence for committed punitive practitioners — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 10938; Religion can override political rights and material gains when believers hold it inviolable; Portraying constitutional conscience truthfully requires offering a moral choice — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 169 (+8 more)

Broader Connections