ABSTRACT
As we have seen, the use of spatial terms is pervasive in definitions of discretion. To have discretion means to have a space for judgment and decisionmaking. “Space for” refers to what an agent is allowed to do, given a set of rules and standards, while “judgment and decision-making” refers to the cognitive activity carried out by an agent within this space. Making judgments and decisions involves reasoning, and we expect agents with discretionary power to act on the basis of their best judgment, which means that their actions are supported by good reasons. Accordingly, we have made a distinction between discretionary space and discretionary reasoning – or, in Robert Alexy’s terms, between discretion in a structural sense and discretion in an epistemic sense.1 Here we shall sketch a conceptual framework that captures both aspects of discretion and elucidates Ronald why professional discretion may be normatively problematic.
