The book provides a new interdisciplinary approach to disagreement. It brings together the research of philosophers, legal theorists, and social scientists. The philosophical debate on peer disagreement deals with people forming conflicting beliefs, despite sharing the relevant evidence and being equally capable of assessing it. This book examines a real-world phenomenon of peer disagreement: two salient cases sharply dividing society and the courts in the United States and Germany.

Philosophers have been puzzled for quite some time by the fact that intelligent and generally reasonable individuals who are equally well-informed and familiar with the same bodies of evidence still disagree with one another. Legal theorists wonder why this is puzzling for philosophers in the first place as disagreement is the very foundation of their work. This book, placed at the intersection of philosophical epistemology and jurisprudence, deals with the theoretical challenges that disagreements between judges create. The philosophical debate is applied to German and American legal disputes. How can such disagreements be integrated into the general philosophical debate on »peer disagreement« and into the legal theory of judicial decisionmaking? How should one deal with such disagreements under the existing legal framework but also in terms of legal policy?

Autorentext

Isabell Villanueva studierte Rechtswissenschaften, Philosophie und Kunstgeschichte an der Universität Trier, der Universidad de Sevilla, der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster und der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. Von 2013 bis 2018 promovierte sie als Elsa-Neumann- und Caroline von Humboldt-Stipendiatin bei Prof. Dr. Keil und Prof. Dr. Christoph Möllers zu »Peer Disagreement in Law« mit einem zweieinhalbjährigen Forschungsaufenthalt an der New York University und Columbia University in den USA unter der Betreuung von Paul Boghossian und Joseph Raz. Seit 2019 ist sie als Richterin in Berlin tätig.

Inhalt
I. Introduction Peer Disagreement in Law Deep Disagreements Chapter Summary Limitations II. Supreme Court: Hobby Lobby The Battle for Universal Health Care The Hobby Lobby Case The Disagreements Involved in the Hobby Lobby Case The Disagreements in Detail Overview of the Sources of Disagreement Analysis Disagreements The Contraception Mandate Debate: Deep Disagreements III. Bundesverfassungsgericht: Incest Incest and the Criminal Law The Incest Case The Disagreements Involved in Incest Disagreements in Detail Overview Sources of Disagreement Analysis Disagreements The Incest Debate: Deep Disagreements IV. Disagreeing Justices Peer Disagreement and Disagreeing Justices Ideology and Disagreeing Justices Conclusion V. Dealing with Disagreement Legal Practice Legal Policy Legal Disagreement and Philosophy References Index