Abstract
AbstractArgumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interactions that generate and justify reasonable public policies. Adopting an argumentation-theoretic perspective, we survey the norms that should govern public argumentation and address some of the complexities that scholarly treatments have identified. Our focus is on norms associated with the ideals ofcorrectnessandparticipationas sources of a politically legitimate deliberative outcome. In principle, both ideals are mutually coherent. If the information needed for a correct deliberative outcome is distributed among agents, then maximising participation increases information diversity. But both ideals can also be in tension. If participants lack competence or are prone to biases, a correct deliberative outcome requires limiting participation. The central question for public argumentation, therefore, is how to strike a balance between both ideals. Rather than advocating a preferred normative framework, our main purpose is to illustrate the complexity of this theme.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Philosophy
Reference185 articles.
1. Aakhus, M. 2003. Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation 17 (3): 265–290.
2. Aakhus, M., and S. Jackson. 2005. Technology, interaction, and design. In Handbook of language and social interaction, ed. K. Fitch and R. Sanders, 411–436. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Aakhus M., and M. Lewiński. 2011. Argument analysis in large-scale deliberation. In Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics, eds. E. Feteris, B. Garssen, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 165–183. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
4. Aarnio, A. 1987. The rational as reasonable. A treatise of legal justification. Dordrecht: Reidel.
5. Ackerman, B.A., and J.S. Fishkin. 2004. Deliberation day. Yale, NH: Yale University Press.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献