Thus, choice is masked by the language of linguistic inexorability.

Evidence

Formalism may be more broadly viewed as extending to any justification that treats as inexorable a choice that is not. In this broader sense, the claimed inexorability might come from something other than rule formulations. To mask, for example, a political, moral, or social choice in the language of ā€œoriginal intentā€ when original intent in fact does not provide a uniquely correct answer to the issue might be considered formalistic in the same way that masking a political, moral, or social choice in the language of the meaning of a rule is considered formalistic when that language does not provide a uniquely correct answer. Similarly, masking choice in the language of mathematical economic derivation or in the language of a unique solution to some ā€œbalanceā€ might be considered formalistic if these methods are in fact comparatively indeterminate. — Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 34 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Formalism is treating as inexorable any choice that is not. — Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 34; Thus, one view of the vice of formalism takes that vice to be one of deception, either of oneself or of others. To disguise a choice in the language of definitional inexorability obscures that choice and thus obstructs questions of how it was made and whether it could have been made differently.

Broader Connections