David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 190 (7):1253-1266 (2013)
Collective deliberation is fuelled by disagreements and its epistemic value depends, inter alia, on how the participants respond to each other in disagreements. I use this accountability thesis to argue that deliberation may be valued not just instrumentally but also for its procedural features. The instrumental epistemic value of deliberation depends on whether it leads to more or less accurate beliefs among the participants. The procedural epistemic value of deliberation hinges on the relationships of mutual accountability that characterize appropriately conducted deliberation. I will argue that it only comes into view from the second-person standpoint. I shall explain what the second-person standpoint in the epistemic context entails and how it compares to Stephen Darwall’s interpretation of the second-person standpoint in ethics
|Keywords||Social epistemology Proceduralism Second-person standpoint|
|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 Christensen (2009). Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy. Philosophy Compass 4 (5):756-767.
David Christensen (2011). Disagreement, Question-Begging, and Epistemic Self-Criticism. Philosophers' Imprint 11 (6):unknown.
David Christensen (2007). Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News. Philosophical Review 116 (2):187-217.
Stephen L. Darwall (2006). The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability. Harvard University Press.
Adam Elga (2010). How to Disagree About How to Disagree. In Ted Warfield & Richard Feldman (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Lisa Bortolotti (2009). The Epistemic Benefits of Reason Giving. Theory and Psychology 19 (5):1-22.
Derk Pereboom (2008). A Compatibilist Account of the Epistemic Conditions on Rational Deliberation. Journal of Ethics 12 (3/4):287 - 306.
Jennifer M. Morton (2011). Toward an Ecological Theory of the Norms of Practical Deliberation. European Journal of Philosophy 19 (4):561-584.
Joshua W. Houston (2009). Contestation and Deliberation Within. Social Philosophy Today 25:241-253.
Marianne Janack (1997). Standpoint Epistemology Without the 'Standpoint'. Hypatia 12 (2):125-39.
Erik Schneiderhan & Shamus Khan (2008). Reasons and Inclusion: The Foundation of Deliberation. Sociological Theory 26 (1):1 - 24.
Andrei Buleandra (2009). Doxastic Transparency and Prescriptivity. Dialectica 63 (3):325-332.
Jennifer M. Morton (2013). Deliberating for Our Far Future Selves. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (4):809-828.
Hélène Landemore (2012). Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton University Press.
Kristoffer Ahlstrom-Vij (2012). Why Deliberative Democracy is (Still) Untenable. Public Affairs Quarterly 26 (3):199-220.
Fabienne Peter (2007). Democratic Legitimacy and Proceduralist Social Epistemology. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (3):329-353.
Klas Roth (2011). Good Will: Cosmopolitan Education as a Site for Deliberation. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43 (3):298-312.
Carolyn Mason (2006). Internal Reasons and Practical Limits on Rational Deliberation. Philosophical Explorations 9 (2):163 – 177.
Heimir Geirsson (2004). Contra Collective Epistemic Agency. Southwest Philosophy Review 20 (2):163-166.
Added to index2012-05-09
Total downloads86 ( #13,591 of 1,096,519 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #11,103 of 1,096,519 )
How can I increase my downloads?