Normative Uncertainty Research Articles

The Limits of Analogy in Establishing the Legal Consequences of a Fictitious Divorce

In the Russian and foreign family legal reality, the practice of inappropriate use of divorces has become widespread. With the general attention of law to fictitious legally significant phenomena in the context of normative uncertainty of the concept, signs and consequences of fictitious divorce, it is necessary to check and take into account the possibilities of analogy as a traditional means of filling legal gaps in private law regulation in relation to the problem of the lack of legislative regulation of the legal consequences of fictitious divorces. At the same time, the method of analogy can and should act not only as one of the objects of study, but also as a means of achieving a scientific result. The study raises and rejects the scientific hypothesis about the similarity of the normatively undefined consequences of the depravity of the causa of a fictitious divorce and the regulated consequences of a fictitious marriage. At the same time, the author shows the positive role of the analogy of law as part of the means of settlement and family law disputes and methods of countering unfair behavior in marriage dissolution without the purpose of its termination. The significance of the work is manifested in its ability to doctrinally support the legislator’s abstinence from direct normative consolidation of the criteria of fictitious divorce and its invalidity. At the same time, the article indicates the way to situationally overcome the uncertainty of the concept under consideration using the analogy of law.

Normative uncertainty meets voting theory

Recent attempts to provide a viable account of decision making under normative uncertainty through the use of voting procedures seem promising, but incomparable options pose a challenge. This paper focuses on the so-called Borda approach to decision making under normative uncertainty (MacAskill, Mind 125(500):967–1004, 2016; MacAskill et al., Moral uncertainty, Oxford University Press, 2020) and illustrates how an extended version of it aimed at accommodating incomplete preference orderings associated with normative theories fails. I propose a different account for proponents fond of the voter-theoretic approach that is grounded by approval voting, which sufficiently addresses the problem of option incomparability and is pragmatically compelling due to its simpler structure.

Uncertain Facts or Uncertain Values? Testing the Distinction Between Empirical and Normative Uncertainty in Moral Judgments.

People can be uncertain in their moral judgments. Philosophers have argued that such uncertainty can either refer to the underlying empirical facts (empirical uncertainty) or to the normative evaluation of these facts itself (normative uncertainty). Psychological investigations of this distinction, however, are rare. In this paper, we combined factor-analytical and experimental approaches to show that empirical and normative uncertainty describe two related but different psychological states. In Study 1, we asked N = 265 participants to describe a case of moral uncertainty and to rate different aspects of their uncertainty about this case. Across this wide range of moral scenarios, our items loaded onto three reliable factors: lack of information, unclear consequences, and normative uncertainty. In Study 2, we confirmed this factor structure using predefined stimulus material. N = 402 participants each rated eight scenarios that systematically varied in their degree of uncertainty regarding the consequences of the described actions and in the value conflict that was inherent to them. The empirical uncertainty factors were mainly affected by the introduction of uncertainty regarding consequences, and the normative uncertainty factor was mainly affected by the introduction of value conflict. Our studies provide evidence that the distinction between empirical and normative uncertainty accurately describes a psychological reality. We discuss the relevance of our findings for research on moral judgments and decision-making, and folk metaethics.

Exploring uncertainties regarding unsolicited findings in genetic testing

ObjectivesNon-normative uncertainty (uncertainty about empirical facts) and normative uncertainty (uncertainty about moral values or beliefs) regarding unsolicited findings (UFs) might play an important role in clinical genetics. Identifying normative uncertainty is of special interest since it might guide towards novel directions for counseling practice. This study aims to gain insight into the role of non-normative and normative uncertainty regarding UFs, as expressed by counselees and counselors. MethodsWe performed a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with counselees (n = 20) and counselors (n = 20) who had been confronted with UFs. Following a deductive approach, we used Han et al.’s existing theoretical framework of uncertainty, in which we additionally incorporated normative uncertainty. ResultsMajor issues of non-normative uncertainty were practical and personal for counselees, whilst counselors’ uncertainty pertained mainly to scientific issues. Normative uncertainty was a major theme throughout the interviews. We encountered the moral conflicts of autonomy vs. beneficence and non-maleficence and of autonomy vs. truthfulness. ConclusionNon-normative uncertainty regarding UFs highlights the need to gain more insight in their penetrance and clinical utility. This study suggests moral conflicts are a major source of feelings of uncertainty in clinical genetics. Practice implicationsExploring counselees’ non-normative uncertainties and normative conflicts seems a prerequisite to optimize genetic counseling.

Revisiting the energy justice framework: Doing justice to normative uncertainties

Energy justice is often approached through the four tenets of procedural, distributive, restorative and recognition justice. Though these tenets are important placeholders for addressing what type of justice issues are involved, they require further normative substantiations. These are achieved by using principles of justice to specify why – normatively speaking – something is just or unjust within each category or tenet of justice. In addressing the principles of justice, it is important to acknowledge normative uncertainties, or the fact that different (incompatible) conceptions of justice might be morally defensible, leading to different normative conclusions or policy recommendations. This paper reviews the definitions of tenets in energy justice scholarship, the occurrence of normative claims, and how these claims are justified. The review shows that the scholarship ignores to a large extent normative uncertainties. In response, we propose a revisited energy justice framework, focusing on four aspects that help us to articulate the normative uncertainties in both the principles and the tenets of energy justice. These aspects are (i) the scale of justice (i.e. whether justice is considered at a local, national, regional, multinational or global scale), (ii) the subject of justice, (iii) the body of knowledge that is assumed and (iv) the time frame in which justice issues are being considered. We hope to provide a conceptual framework that make explicit the different types of normative assumptions underlying claims of justice, which will ultimately improve the quality and legitimacy of normative conclusions such as policy recommendations that follow.

COVID-19 Contact Tracing Mobile Apps: A Comparative Perspective using the “Cascade of Deference”

This article frames the action imperative as an ethical dilemma for governance actors. It situates the debate in the context of the design and implementation of digital contact tracing applications to mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a normative case study approach, it seeks to answer the question—how can the ethical dilemma of an action imperative in the face of scientific and normative uncertainty, be resolved by governance actors in ways that can minimize harms? Drawing insights from the field of Science and Technology Studies, this article makes the case that when scientific evidence claims are weak, the action imperative should follow a cascade of deference with objectivity, consensus, precaution, and subsidiarity as stopping points. It concludes by making a broader case to promote moral reasoning concerning the substantive goals of digitalization.

Normative uncertainty and societal preferences: the problem with evaluative standards.

Many technological systems these days interact with their environment with increasingly little human intervention. This situation comes with higher stakes and consequences that society needs to manage. No longer are we dealing with 404 pages: AI systems today may cause serious harm. To address this, we wish to exert a kind of control over these systems, so that they can adhere to our moral beliefs. However, given the plurality of values in our societies, which "oughts" ought these machines to adhere to? In this article, we examine Borda voting as a way to maximize expected choice-worthiness among individuals through different possible "implementations" of ethical principles. We use data from the Moral Machine experiment to illustrate the effectiveness of such a voting system. Although it appears to be effective on average, the maximization of expected choice-worthiness is heavily dependent on the formulation of principles. While Borda voting may be a good way of ensuring outcomes that are preferable to many, the larger problems in maximizing expected choice-worthiness, such as the capacity to formulate credences well, remain notoriously difficult; hence, we argue that such mechanisms should be implemented with caution and that other problems ought to be solved first.

Normative Uncertainty in Solar Climate Engineering Research Governance

ABSTRACT This paper explores what kind of uncertainty a research program governing solar climate engineering through Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) needs to account for. Specifically, it tries to answer two central issues with regards to SAI research and it’s ethical evaluation: One, what irreducible uncertainties remain throughout the decision-process, and, two, how do these remaining uncertainties affect the ethical evaluation of SAI research. The main assumption is that decisions on SAI research governance will be made under normative uncertainty, i.e. situations under irreducible knowledge-constraints that arise in concrete, practical decision-contexts. These decision-contexts are multi-lateral and empirically ambiguous, and the decision-makers need to reconcile a plurality of values. While normative uncertainty complicates the ethical evaluation of policy decisions, I argue that moral considerations can be accommodated through the inclusion of recognitional, participatory justice approaches, as well as adaptive and anticipatory governance methods.

A paradox for tiny probabilities and enormous values

AbstractWe begin by showing that every theory of the value of uncertain prospects must have one of three unpalatable properties. Reckless theories recommend giving up a sure thing, no matter how good, for an arbitrarily tiny chance of enormous gain; timid theories permit passing up an arbitrarily large potential gain to prevent a tiny increase in risk; non‐transitive theories deny the principle that, if is better than and is better than , then must be better than . Having set up this trilemma, we study its horns. Non‐transitivity has been much discussed; we focus on drawing out the costs and benefits of recklessness and timidity when it comes to axiology, decision theory, and normative uncertainty.

The Problem of ‘Uncertainty’ in International Criminal Law and the Common Law ‘Method’

Abstract International criminal law has evolved from abstract ideas of an international criminal jurisdiction in the early twentieth century to encompass a comprehensive set of tribunals, rules, and methods. This article explores the contribution of the common law to the development of international criminal law, drawing on two key historical episodes – the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, and the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) – to consider the common law’s historic influence over, and relationship to, uncertainty within the system of international criminal law. First, the article highlights how British jurists framed the normative uncertainty vis-à-vis the idea of international criminal justice in their contributions to this Yearbook. Second, it examines the characteristics shared between common law and international criminal law, with a view to appraising the potential relationship of both ‘systems’. Finally, it interrogates the differing treatments of the common law throughout the development of substantive international criminal law over time, considering how judges utilized the common law as they navigated the complex dialectic between ‘statutory’ and ‘judge-made’ law.

Participatory repertoires for aligning policy and society: An analysis of Dutch stakeholder views on deep geothermal energy

In a transition to a sustainable energy system, governmental actors initiate participatory processes to gain better insights in questions and concerns of stakeholders, or to create support for decisions. Those participatory activities are embedded in institutionalized and formal decision making procedures. Participatory approaches promise to function as alignment mechanisms between those policies and society. The aim of this paper is to contribute to more successful alignment mechanisms. Based on a thematic analysis of 18 interviews and approximately one hundred policy documents, we relate stakeholders' uncertainties about ultra-deep geothermal energy to their preferred modes of participation. These stakeholders were (in)directly involved in the Dutch Green Deal program, in this case the Green Deal Geothermal Energy in the province North Brabant. Based on the analysis, we identify four participatory storylines and develop a more systemic view on different participatory activities: ‘participatory repertoires’. We conclude that unproductive power-politics between different political-administrative levels, and emerging local and wider publics that hamper alignments, may be prevented. This can be done by prioritizing societal dialogue on normative uncertainties in a range of combinations with local dialogue on normative, conceptual uncertainties, and with national or local joint fact finding on informational uncertainties.

Metaethical intuitions in lay concepts of normative uncertainty

ABSTRACT Even if we know all relevant descriptive facts about an act, we can still be uncertain about its moral acceptability. Most literature on how to act under such normative uncertainty operates on moral realism, the metaethical view that there are objective moral facts. Lay people largely report anti-realist intuitions, which poses the question of how these intuitions affect their interpretation and handling of normative uncertainty. Results from two quasi-experimental studies (total N = 365) revealed that most people did not interpret normative uncertainty as referring to objective moral facts but rather as uncertainty regarding one’s own view, uncertainty regarding the culturally accepted view or as the result of ambivalence. Especially the anti-realist majority of participants interpreted normative uncertainty different to how it is described in the literature on choice under normative uncertainty. Metaethical views were also associated with lay peoples’ choice of uncertainty reduction strategies and with assumptions about the intended aim of such strategies. The current findings suggest that empirical investigations of normative uncertainty might benefit from considering folk metaethical pluralism, as the lay public largely disagrees with the metaethical assumptions underlying the current discourse on choice under normative uncertainty.

Charitable Giving under Normative Uncertainty: Experimental Evidence on The Behavioral Impact of Normative Expert Advice

Charitable Giving under Normative Uncertainty: Experimental Evidence on The Behavioral Impact of Normative Expert Advice

The inseparable relation between foresight and uncertainty

Abstract This presentation starts with an interactive mentimeter poll to involve the audience. They will be asked several questions about what they find important in dealing with uncertainty in public health foresight studies. Background The future is per definition uncertain. Our knowledge about the future is obviously limited, especially when we look further into the future. Next to limited knowledge, people also have different ideas about what they consider a desirable future. All these aspects of uncertainty play a role when doing a foresight study. One of the challenges when doing a foresight study is to address these uncertainties in a systematic manner. Methods The cognitive uncertainty addresses the lack of knowledge, which can easily be extended to the information that can be inaccurate or unreliable. These cognitive uncertainties can vary widely, and can be classified according to location, level and nature of the uncertainty. Especially in foresight studies with a strong quantitative character, the cognitive uncertainties can be crucial and can form the basis of developing scenarios. Next to the cognitive uncertainties, normative uncertainties can be distinguished which address desirable futures. These represent the obvious differences in norms and values that people have when valuing health. There are several examples of public health foresight studies that include a proper consideration of uncertainties involved. Conclusions Applications of foresight studies in the field of public health are still limited. However, the recent years we see a broadening of initiatives of doing a foresight study, including addressing uncertainty in an more systematic way. Especially in public health, the normative uncertainty might play a rather relevant role.

2.Q. Workshop: Prepared for the unexpected: using foresight to address uncertainty

Abstract All future trends carry uncertainty in them. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic showed great uncertainty about current and future health impacts and how the virus may directly impact our health. Foresight (as a systematic, participatory, future-intelligence-gathering and medium-to-long term vision-building process aimed at enabling present-day decisions and mobilising joint actions) explicitly addresses uncertainty. Doing a foresight study one has to deal with different sources of uncertainty. Next to commonly known statistical uncertainty, foresight studies have to deal with cognitive uncertainty, i.e. uncertainty related to the limited knowledge that we have regarding the complexity of the underlying system or limited knowledge of what future economic growth will be. A better understanding of the location, level, and nature of the cognitive uncertainties helps assess the robustness of future scenarios. In addition to cognitive uncertainty, normative uncertainty are distinguished. This refers to uncertainty related to differences in what we consider a desirable future. Especially in the field of public health people differ on what they consider to be “good health”. In this workshop, we will focus on the different aspects of uncertainty and how they are considered in existing foresight studies. The workshop will start with an interactive Mentimeter session to better understand how the audience is familiar with foresight and uncertainty. Then, a brief presentation is given as introduction to foresight and a systematic way of accounting for uncertainty, explaining the basic concepts to level understanding of the audience. This is followed by a presentation of a Foresight study (FRESHER) that addresses cognitive uncertainties consistently and systematically. The second foresight study (Dutch PHFS, RVIM) is a good example of how normative uncertainties are considered. Finally, the last presentation (CEG-IST) gives the policy perspective about how policy makers can incorporate uncertainty, as modelled through foresight, into policy evaluation. The workshop will be concluded by a discussion with the three presenters on the lessons learned regarding foresight and uncertainty. Key messages • Foresight studies addressing uncertainty are essential to be better prepared for the future. • Acknowledging different types of uncertainty is needed to support foresight-informed policy making.

Normative uncertainties in public health foresight

Abstract Background People value health differently, based on the norms and values. This is important when looking into the future trends in health and health care., and the perception of challenges they may arise from these trends. Methods Together with stakeholders from a broad range of health-related professions, we identified several challenges for public health and healthy environments. Professionals working on these subjects came up with different goals and different ways to achieve them. These normative goals in health policies provide uncertainties in foresight, because they can be either synergetic or conflicting. Results In the Dutch Public Health foresight study of 2014 four societal challenges for public health and healthcare were identified and formulated, as follows: (1) to keep people healthy as long as possible and cure illness promptly; (2) to support vulnerable people and enable social participation’ (3) to promote individual autonomy and freedom of choice; and (4) to keep healthcare affordable. In 2022 we will update and deepen these perspectives on public health and at the same time we will broaden the usability of working with this method by focussing on environmental health. Conclusions To explicitly distinguish different perspectives on health leads to a better understanding and dealing with normative uncertainties by taking into account the trade-offs between competing interests and values. The challenge then is to identify policy options that have positive effect from different perspective, the win-wins.

Minimax-regret climate policy with deep uncertainty in climate modeling and intergenerational discounting

Integrated assessment models have become the primary tools for comparing climate policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Such policies have often been identified by considering a planner who seeks to make optimal trade-offs between the costs of carbon abatement and the economic damages from climate change. The planning problem has been formalized as one of optimal control, the objective being to minimize the total costs of abatement and damages over a time horizon. Studying climate policy as a control problem presumes that a planner knows enough to make optimization feasible, but in practice, physical and economic uncertainties abound. Manski, Sanstad, and DeCanio (2021) proposed and studied use of the minimax-regret (MMR) decision criterion to account for deep uncertainty in climate modeling. Here we study choice of climate policy that minimizes maximum regret with deep uncertainty regarding both the correct climate model and the appropriate time discount rate to use in intergenerational assessment of policy consequences. The analysis considers a range of discount rates to express both empirical and normative uncertainty about the appropriate magnitude of this parameter. The findings are novel and informative. The MMR analysis points to use of a relatively low discount rate of 0.02 for climate policy. The MMR decision rule keeps the maximum future temperature increase below 2 °C above the 1900–09 level for most of the parameter values used to weight costs and damages.

통상조약 내 연계형 노동조항의 불확정성과 국내법 심사

As a new phenomenon to be noted in international law, the interaction among sub-fields of international law is emerging. Among them, there is a link between trade and labour. This link is to prescribe labour provisions that guarantee labour rights in free trade agreements regulating trade. For such labour provisions, references are generally made to the International Labour Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (“ILO Declaration”). A clause that directs an explicit reference is inherently indeterminate to function effectively. Through the analysis of the Report of the Panel of Experts (“Panel Report”) on the case of violations of labour provisions in the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement (“EU-Korea FTA”), this article examines whether the labour provisions that explicitly refer to soft international standards such as ILO Declaration can function as rules that can enforce international labour standards in trade treaties. The findings of analyzing the Panel Report in this case can be summarized as follows: First, the labour provision with an explicit reference functions as an effect indicator that gives legal binding force to the content of the norms in the referenced international document. Even if there is no direct legal binding force in the indicated international document, its content remains legally binding pursuant to the labour provision. The norms in the Compilation of Decisions of the International Labour Organization’s Committee on Freedom of Association (“Compilation of Decisions”) thus become concrete legal norms directly applicable to the facts in question. Second, the obligation to respect, promote, and realize the principle of freedom of association was inclusively categorized as an obligation of result. Therefore, the Panel of Experts examined whether the relevant laws of Korea and the actual applications were consistent with the results required by the standards in the Compilation of Decisions. The obligation of result is relatively easier to prove for the party claiming non-performance while the burden of proof is cumbersome for the party claiming performance. It is of great interest to see how broadly and deeply Article 13.4.3 of the EU-Korea FTA will affect Korea’s guarantee of labour rights in the future. This is because the logic of finding and applying the law presented in the process of resolving the normative uncertainty of Article 13.4.3 by the Panel of Experts’ in deciding this case formally encompasses the entire scope governed by the fundamental conventions of the ILO. However, it is not easy to predict how it will develop in the future. Whether the EU will request the establishment of an expert panel procedure will vary on a case-by-case basis, and it is unclear how the function of an expert panel without formal rules of procedure will be addressed in the revision of the EU-Korea FTA.

Introduction: Severe Uncertainty in Science, Medicine, and Technology

Introduction: Severe Uncertainty in Science, Medicine, and Technology

Abuse of law as a form of opposition to the implementation of the law in the context of modern scientific discourse and law enforcement practice

The subject of the article is the abuse of law as a phenomenon of legal reality, its definition, the patterns of its arising and developing in legal relations, the consequences of abuse of law established in the prescribed manner.The purpose of the research is to confirm or refute the theoretical hypothesis about the nature, as well as of the role and the functional load of abuse of law, to obtain the conformation of the theoretical judgment of praxeological nature and the conclusions.Methodology. In achieving the purpose and the corresponding research tasks the dialectical method's instruments were used, which made it possible to establish the relationships between the formally expressed normative uncertainties and the difficulties of their practical implementation, to find structural and functional conclusions in legal behavior and its consequences. The opportunities provided by comparative legal, formal legal, historical and legal methods of the cognition were widely used.The main results and the scope. The analysis of the given problems showed that despite of the prevalence in relations regulated by various law branches and the frequent reference to it among scholars, it was not possible to develop the unanimous approach to understanding of the abuse of law. This is partly due to the two main factors: (a) the uncertainty and evaluativeness of this phenomenon; (b) the desire to develop a unique interpretation of the right's abuse by an individual researcher.Thus, the unique and extraordinary options of understanding of abuse of law have been developed. Often they do not correspond to the practice of its application and not fit the legal science system's categories and its knowledge. The current situation leads to the confusion in the research and ideas blurring of established legal constructions. In addition, theoretical knowledge that has no outlet to practice loses their importance and does not contribute the simplification of practical activities to implementing the law. The main conclusions of the research are expressed in the provisions that the abuse of law plays the role of legal fact, associated with the onset of harmful consequences or the threat of their occurrence. It demonstrates the desire of the abuser to obtain benefits of different nature by leveling legal requirements, in their complex misconduct. The abuse of law either acts as a way of committing an offense and constitutes the objective side of the act, or has an independent meaning, causes the application of legal responsibility, if it acts as a method of committing an offense, and measures of legal protection, if it has an independent meaning, the legal structure of law abuse does not include a duty and looks like this: subjective law – the exercise of subjective right – the limits of the exercise of subjective right – illegal act – the onset of harmful consequences or the threat of their occurrence – measures of responsibility or protection measures.