Deliberative Democracy and the Discursive Dilemma
نویسنده
چکیده
Taken as a model for how groups should make collective judgments and decisions, the ideal of deliberative democracy is inherently ambiguous. Consider the idealised case where it is agreed on all sides that a certain conclusion should be endorsed if and only if certain premises are admitted. Does deliberative democracy recommend that members of the group debate the premises and then individually vote, in the light of that debate, on whether or not to support the conclusion? Or does it recommend that members individually vote on the premises, and then let their commitment to the conclusion be settled by whether or not the group endorses the required premises? Is deliberative democracy to enforce the discipline of reason at the individual level, as in the first possibility, or at the collective level, as in the second?
منابع مشابه
Morality, Law and Deliberative Democracy - An Enquiry Concerning Jürgen Habermas ́s and Karl-Otto Apel ́s Discursive Programs of
متن کامل
The discourse theory of democracy and public sphere in Habermas's ideas
Research and scientific explanation about discourse democracy theory of Jurgen Habermas and studying and evaluating reflection and generalization of his philosophical and epistemological principles are objectives which the researcher follows in this research From this view, there is studied representation of concepts and categories such as cognitive interests, communication action, discoursing...
متن کاملA preliminary analysis of discourses about China and democracy
Based on examination of expressed opinions and views, online or offline, this essay attends to talks or discussion about democracy. These talks are taken as discursive manifestation of sociocultural aspirations revealed in a sample of contemporary deliberative rhetoric in China. A selective, small survey of related discourses identifies three arguments for two positions about China and democrac...
متن کاملTalking It Out With Others vs. Deliberation Within and the Law of Group Polarization: Some Implications of the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning for Deliberative Democracy
Talking it out with others vs. deliberation within and the law of group polarization: Some implications of the argumentative theory of reasoning for deliberative democracy. This paper argues that a new psychological theory—the argumentative theory of reasoning—provides theoretical support for the discursive, dialogical ideal of democratic deliberation. It converges, in particular, with delibera...
متن کاملThe Discursive Dilemma and Public Reason
Political theorists have offered many accounts of collective decision-making under pluralism. I discuss a key dimension on which such accounts differ: the importance assigned not only to the choices made but also to the reasons underlying those choices. On that dimension, different accounts lie in between two extremes. The ‘minimal liberal account’ holds that collective decisions should be made...
متن کامل