Decisionism

Decisionismo is a political and legal theory that takes the decision and the decision maker at the center of considerations. She holds less the content and the reasons for a decision as important as the decision itself. According to her, it can not be general justifications of values ​​or moral positions. Therefore, the decision of people that action is ultimately arbitrary and unjustifiable for this or through the means of logical analysis or on the basis of ethical criteria.

The term " decisionismo " is derived from " Dezision " (Latin for decision). The term was especially introduced by Carl Schmitt in the State and constitutional theoretical discussion.

History

The decisionismo lies in the core already formulated in the medieval universals opinion based on that ethical and moral postulates are not based on " Platonic " eternal beings, we have to recognize and acknowledge, but spiritual ideas are, it can be decided for or against, and must "The good is the good because God wanted it that way in his omnipotence. He could have decided differently, otherwise he would not omnipotent, " wrote mutatis mutandis William of Ockham.

Following on Thomas Hobbes emphasized that the social validity of each standard is based on the decision-making power. This, he pointed to the State with the expectation to avert the danger of religious civil wars by government decision: auctoritas, non veritas facit legem ' ( Authority determines the law, not truth ') eluded everyone the legitimacy of for " his truth " others worthy of death heretics or criminals said.

The value-free, purely scientific " descriptive decisionismo " Panagiotis Kondylis ' states that in interpersonal life, without exception, are all based ethical, moral philosophy and legal theory demands on the decision of real people for or against their validity. There is no higher powers or instances that relieve us of the burden of the decision as well as the freedom to decide.

Effect and reception

The decisionistic basic thesis was the history of ideas used in very different ideologies ambitious as a building block. This was possible because they eo ipso ( of itself ) is value-free and can be integrated into antagonistic worldviews themselves. It always occur self- contradictions, if such an ideology attaches formally decisionistically, but contains content normative components. An existentialist or voluntarist theory, for example, which says: "All the standards apply only qua decision for them, so we have to decide ," contains a contradiction in terms, because the decisionistic thesis ( Everything is judgment thing) with the normative component ( " so we should decide " ) is incompatible.

Among the many who used decisionistic basic assumptions in their theories, heard Carl Schmitt. His views are based on a primarily Catholic worldview whose beliefs Schmitt presupposes as truths and no one decisionistic decision exposes. That is why Schmitt was none of his creative phases consistent Dezisionist, but used decisionistic arguments at times in support of the contents respective positions. Especially in the context of his Christian faith postulates he used decisionistic arguments and despised after Juan Donoso Cortés, the completely uncompromising " in discussion class " with their liberalism and parliamentarism, because it is absurd for religious point of view to discuss fixed truths or expose them to a compromise.

Moreover, the decisionismo appears in different contexts: the legal theory, the moral philosophy and the social science context.

In legal discourse

In the legal discussion stating the decisionismo that human rights norms never force reduction confiscated " about legal " standards apply, but only be set by a legislative act of a concrete, human legislator in force, and ultimately by arbitrary, free decision. The decisionismo looks therefore exposed to the accusation of being ultimately subjective and arbitrary. But it is by no means content decisionistic the theory that laws should be set arbitrarily, but only the finding that it is in fact so. Critics say the legal decisionismo shortening the term of the right to individual rules. Rather, one must understand the law as a unit of rules and underlying legal principles. The law would be made only on the basis of the rules and principles find a decision that 'll be substantiated by means of a legal argument. The replies of the decisionismo that there is no " underlying legal principles " are just except those that have been previously established as legal principles qua act of will.

In moral philosophy

In the moral philosophical discussion stating the decisionismo that any attempt at moral justification must refer back to themselves not justifiable decisions in the final analysis. He meets up with the so prepared by the Schmitt students Ernst- Wolfgang Böckenförde thesis that the modern constitutional state based on conditions that he himself is unable to guarantee ( the so-called Böckenförde - dictum ).

In Social and Political Sciences

In the sociological and political science discussion (especially Habermas) is less oriented to Carl Schmitt the decisionismo. He refers here to a separation of roles between experts and decision makers. Scientists should leave the decision about the goals and means of action of the policy itself and limit themselves to put their knowledge to achieve these goals are available.