The Bridge Between Objectivity And Contextual Discretion
Mechanical objectivity involves the removal of subjectivity from the reader or, in this case, a judge or doctor when utilizing discretion. Porter explains that, “expertise must include an ability to follow the rules…but there is no avoiding the judicious exercise of discretion” (4). Furthermore, discretion is used daily for a variety of scenarios; however, how does one define ‘discretion?’ Per Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, discretion is defined as, “the quality of having or showing discernment or good judgment; ability to make reasonable decisions.” This definition raises two crucial questions. Who should determine what this means? How does one go about defining “good” or “reasonable” judgement? Porter explains that the American Court system has worked to limit the discretion of its nation’s people, which leaves the discretion to be decided by the “dominion.” Moreover, the political institution does not remove discretionary power completely.
…show more content…
Rather, the courts prefer to reduce as much of its use as possible while upholding those of the “political experts” and their use of “theoretical over practical knowledge” (195).
The author refrains from including both forms of knowledge to avoid the subjectivity attached to one’s experiences. Nonetheless, interpretation is key to building a bridge between objectivity and contextual judgement because there is a relationship between the text and the reader. When examining any text, one interprets it in a unique way. Subjectivity is required to establish a perspective from the text to be able to apply it to the situation in question. For example, adjudication involves a judge’s understanding and application of the meaning of legal texts and their values to determine the verdict of a defendant. One cannot accomplish this stage without first interpreting the case law involved, and thus requires some form of
subjectivity.
I would like to emphasize that I do not believe objectivity cannot exist within the use of discretion. One may wonder, though, how something can be ‘objectively true.’ At its core, this happens if someone can experience it — whether it be an object, place, or thing — through the individual or someone else’s senses to confirm its existence. One may argue that it is difficult to deem something as objective if one person’s perception of the thing in question will vary from one to the next. However, Porter explains, “mechanical objectivity is just an ideal” (213). Nevertheless, it is because our understanding of the ideas changes, but the idea behind it remains, that it is objective. For example, global warming can be proven because the idea that our planet’s temperature is continuously rising remains true. Despite the controversy surrounding the issue, it can still be proven by the scientists that study global temperature patterns. Although I do not believe one can use discretion while maintaining completely impartial, I do believe one can be objectively true while making such determinations.
Rather, the courts prefer to reduce as much of its use as possible while upholding those of the “political experts” and their use of “theoretical over practical knowledge” (195).
The author refrains from including both forms of knowledge to avoid the subjectivity attached to one’s experiences. Nonetheless, interpretation is key to building a bridge between objectivity and contextual judgement because there is a relationship between the text and the reader. When examining any text, one interprets it in a unique way. Subjectivity is required to establish a perspective from the text to be able to apply it to the situation in question. For example, adjudication involves a judge’s understanding and application of the meaning of legal texts and their values to determine the verdict of a defendant. One cannot accomplish this stage without first interpreting the case law involved, and thus requires some form of
subjectivity.
I would like to emphasize that I do not believe objectivity cannot exist within the use of discretion. One may wonder, though, how something can be ‘objectively true.’ At its core, this happens if someone can experience it — whether it be an object, place, or thing — through the individual or someone else’s senses to confirm its existence. One may argue that it is difficult to deem something as objective if one person’s perception of the thing in question will vary from one to the next. However, Porter explains, “mechanical objectivity is just an ideal” (213). Nevertheless, it is because our understanding of the ideas changes, but the idea behind it remains, that it is objective. For example, global warming can be proven because the idea that our planet’s temperature is continuously rising remains true. Despite the controversy surrounding the issue, it can still be proven by the scientists that study global temperature patterns. Although I do not believe one can use discretion while maintaining completely impartial, I do believe one can be objectively true while making such determinations.