Has Vagueness Really No Function in Law?

Sektionsbeiträge des Achten Internationalen Kongresses der Gesellschaft Für Analytische Philosophie E.V (2013)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
When the United States Supreme Court used the expression “with all deliberate speed” in the case Brown v. Board of Education, it did so presumably because of its vagueness. Many jurists, economists, linguists, and philosophers accordingly assume that vagueness can be strategically used to one’s advantage. Roy Sorensen has cast doubt on this assumption by strictly differentiating between vagueness and generality. Indeed, most arguments for the value of vagueness go through only when vagueness is confused with generality. Sorensen claims that vagueness – correctly understood – has no function in law inter alia because judges lie systematically when confronted with borderline cases. I argue that both claims are wrong. First, judges do not need to resort to lying when adjudicating borderline cases, and even if they had to, this would not render vagueness useless. Secondly, vagueness has several important functions in law such as the reduction of decision costs and the delegation of power. Although many functions commonly attributed to the vagueness of legal expressions are in fact due to their generality or other semantic properties, vagueness has at least these two functions in law.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-11-21
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
On Bullshit.Frankfurt, Harry

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
17 ( #40,010 of 41,616 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #38,770 of 41,616 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.