Using automated systems to avoid the need for human discretion in government contexts – a scenario we call ‘rule by automation’ – can help us achieve the ideal of a free and equal society. Drawing on relational theories of freedom and equality, we explain how rule by automation is a more complete realization of the rule of law and why thinkers in these traditions have strong reasons to support it. Relational theories are based on the absence of human domination and hierarchy, which automation helps us achieve. Nevertheless, there is another understanding of relational theories where what matters is the presence of valuable relationships with those in power. Exploring this further might help us see when and why we should accept human discretion.
The authors would like to thank the Institute for Practical Ethics (IPE) at UC San Diego for its support. We would also like to thank John Evans, Craig Callender, Ava Wright, Robert Wallace, participants at the IPE Workshop and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.
Chiao, V. 2016. “Discretion and Domination in Criminal Procedure: Reflections on Pettit.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 15 (1): 92–110, https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X15599104.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, M. 2015. “When Judges Have Reasons Not to Give Reasons: A Comparative Law Approach.” Washington & Lee Legal Review 72 (2): 483–571.Search in Google Scholar
D’Amato, A. 1977. “Can/Should Computers Replace Judges?” Georgia Law Review 11 (5): 1277–302.Search in Google Scholar
Gädeke, D. 2020. “Does a Mugger Dominate? Episodic Power and the Structural Dimension of Domination.” Journal of Political Philosophy 28 (2): 199–221, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12202.Search in Google Scholar
Kolodny, N. 2019. “Being Under the Power of Others.” In Republicanism and the Future of Democracy. 1st ed., edited by Y. Elazar, and G. Rousselière, 94–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108630153.006Search in Google Scholar
Sharon, A. 2016. “Domination and the Rule of Law.” In Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Vol. 2, edited by D. Sobel, P. Vallentyne, and S. Wall, 128–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198759621.003.0006Search in Google Scholar
Terry v. Ohio. 1968. 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (Douglas, J. dissenting).Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston