One of the central challenges for modern democracies is enabling citizens with divergent preferences to reach shared decisions. Unlike voting or negotiation, deliberation encourages participants to revise their initial positions through rational dialogue aimed at identifying the most just or well-founded choice. However, deliberation should not be understood merely as an expression of personal honesty or coherence, but as a collective search for the best possible decision through reasoned exchange. While coherence and honesty are valuable, treating them as ultimate goals distorts deliberative democracy, shifting it from a decision-oriented process toward a person-centered one focused on interpersonal respect.
LOGICAL COHERENCE AND HONESTY IN PUBLIC DELIBERATION
Mario Graziano
2025-01-01
Abstract
One of the central challenges for modern democracies is enabling citizens with divergent preferences to reach shared decisions. Unlike voting or negotiation, deliberation encourages participants to revise their initial positions through rational dialogue aimed at identifying the most just or well-founded choice. However, deliberation should not be understood merely as an expression of personal honesty or coherence, but as a collective search for the best possible decision through reasoned exchange. While coherence and honesty are valuable, treating them as ultimate goals distorts deliberative democracy, shifting it from a decision-oriented process toward a person-centered one focused on interpersonal respect.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
