Not exact matches
It is
arbitrary in that there are no inherent grounds in the object of that choice that compel my response... Jesus is in the world in
such a way that he readies me for whatever beliefs and
actions and forms of self - discipline I may be obliged to take on.
If there is any
action (or ethics) that emerges from
such a theology, it is fairly
arbitrary and does not proceed out of interior soliloquy at all, but comes rather in response to surface stimuli.
But apart from the (rather fundamental) rule of law point — that obligations need to have some legal authority for them to be binding — if they do want to impose
such an obligation, it should be expressly set out in the Rules, with a corresponding commentary, so that lawyers know exactly what
actions they have to take, or not take, to comply with their obligation (and, crucially, aren't at the whim of
arbitrary diktats from the LSUC).
In public regulation of this sort there is no
such thing as absolute and untrammelled «discretion», that is that
action can be taken on any ground or for any reason that can be suggested to the mind of the administrator; no legislative Act can, without express language, be taken to contemplate an unlimited
arbitrary power exercisable for any purpose, however capricious or irrelevant, regardless of the nature or purpose of the statute.