David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Episteme 3 (3):175-191 (2006)
It is often assumed that democracies can make good use of the epistemic benefi ts of diversity among their citizenry, but difficult to show why this is the case. In a deliberative democracy, epistemically relevant diversity has three aspects: the diversity of opinions, values, and perspectives. Deliberative democrats generally argue for an epistemic form of Rawls' difference principle: that good deliberative practice ought to maximize deliberative inputs, whatever they are, so as to benefi t all deliberators, including the least eff ective. The proper maximandum of such a principle is not the pool of reasons, but rather the availability of perspectives. Th is sort of diversity makes robustness across different perspectives the proper epistemic aim of deliberative processes. Robustness also offers a measure of success for those democratic practices of inquiry based on the deliberation of all citizens
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
David Estlund (2000). Political Quality. Social Philosophy and Policy 17 (01):127-.
Samuel Freeman (2000). Deliberative Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment. Philosophy and Public Affairs 29 (4):371–418.
Helen E. Longino (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Hélène Landemore (2013). Deliberation, Cognitive Diversity, and Democratic Inclusiveness: An Epistemic Argument for the Random Selection of Representatives. Synthese 190 (7):1209-1231.
Alessandro Blasimme, Bettina Schmietow & Giuseppe Testa (2013). Reprogramming Potentiality: The Co-Production of Stem Cell Policy and Democracy. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (1):30-32.
Similar books and articles
Robert B. Talisse (2007). From Pragmatism to Perfectionism: Cheryl Misak's Epistemic Deliberativism. Philosophy and Social Criticism 33 (3):387-406.
John S. Dryzek (2005). Deliberative Democracy in Divided Societies: Alternatives to Agonism and Analgesia. Political Theory 33 (2):218 - 242.
Miriam Solomon (2006). Norms of Epistemic Diversity. Episteme 3 (1-2):23-36.
Alison Kadlec (0040). Critical Pragmatism and Deliberative Democracy. Theoria (=117;User_Persona=false;ord=1234):54-80.
Fabienne Peter (2007). Democratic Legitimacy and Proceduralist Social Epistemology. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (3):329-353.
Charles Blattberg (2003). Patriotic, Not Deliberative, Democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 6 (1):155-174.
Greg Johnson (2003). On the Importance of Reversibility in Deliberative Democracy. Social Philosophy Today 19:179-191.
Scott F. Aikin & J. Caleb Clanton (2010). Developing Group-Deliberative Virtues. Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (4):409-424.
Robert E. Goodin (2008). Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice After the Deliberative Turn. Oup Oxford.
Kristoffer Ahlstrom-Vij (2012). Why Deliberative Democracy is (Still) Untenable. Public Affairs Quarterly 26 (3):199-220.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads174 ( #6,283 of 1,696,586 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #56,622 of 1,696,586 )
How can I increase my downloads?