ABSTRACT
One Harvard philosopher has characterized our time as the age of decision and another has proclaimed that decision is king, even though neither of them is an existentialist. Central in all this talk Mrs. Shklar has found two notions: one which she labels "decisionism," that decision is somehow basic in the human condition, and the notion that we must separate legal, moral, and political decisions. A mild form of decisionism would hold that decisions cannot be mere deductions from or applications of rules or reasons via some kind of practical syllogism or logical inference. It must suffice here to point out that radical decisionism cannot assert itself in the public arena, as it has and does, unless it inconsistently talks in just the manner it condemns. A decision is not irrational merely because it is a decision or because it cannot be a conclusion of a logical inference, simple or complex.
