The most significant part of her speech from eight years ago has scarcely been discussed at all, which is her acknowledgment that neutrality and objectivity do not exist. One should strive to minimize the role of bias, but it is ineradicable. More than that, it sometimes serves a valuable social function–surely, students of Burke can understand this. The people who actually find this shocking or dangerous reveal themselves as believers in pleasant fictions left over from the 18th and 19th centuries. Those who understand that everyone is from somewhere specific, that everyone is part of a particular tradition, heir to a certain background and shaped by the places where he has lived and the experiences in those places, and that universal Man does not exist anywhere in the world, are not troubled by this. For us, it is a simple restatement of the obvious. The idea that where we come from matters deeply and defines who we are is hardly one that conservatives should find outrageous.
Which brings up a good point--what do people mean by the terms 'neutral' or 'objective'? (Or 'dispassioned'?) What did Sotomayor mean? We may draw upon our experiences to understand "abstract" notions (justice) -- but what happens if we have not been living in accordance with the virtues? Can we make correct judgements about justice, for example?
I would tend to think that to be "netural" is akin to being just -- that is to same one is not partial to any side before examining "the facts of the matter" and one gives everyone his due, with respect to examining their side of the case. As for 'objective' -- a judge should be trying to get as complete a picture as possible, seeking all possible evidence before rendering judgment, and so on.
Edit. More from Dr. Larison -- Nuance.
No comments:
Post a Comment