Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Procedural democracy and its critique
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Procedural democracy and its critique
INTRODUCTION
In his book, Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework, author David Estlund proposes a method of democratic decision making that he calls “epistemic proceduralism.” In preparing to write this critique, I attempted to gain at least a brief but clear understanding of Estlund’s entire framework. Whilst for time and space reasons, I could not delve into all of the available materials, I did happily find that much of this book, including the chapter I will reference primarily in this paper, is very in-depth and well thought-out by Estlund.
The main premise of his argument is thus: democratic decisions must use intellectual, epistemic methods of arriving at any conclusion in order to be held as legitimate. By the very process of using epistemic methods, the decisions made are more likely to be the correct ones for the situation at hand.
In the following pages I will attempt to explain Estlund’s thesis and position for epistemic proceduralism. I will discuss the main ideas of his argument. I will then present a detailed critique of Estlund’s rational, and finally, I will offer a counter-argument that I believe will supersede the flaws in Estlund’s theory.
ESTLUND’S ARGUMENT
To begin with, let us break down Estlund’s phrase into its literal meaning. “Epistemic,” as we by now know, is the study of knowledge in and of itself. As for “proceduralism,” we can intuitively discern that it is the process of progressing toward something.
Ergo, at its most basic meaning, epistemic proceduralism concerns the use of knowledge to effectively employ a democratic method of decision making. In order to be a useful and legitimate method of democracy, the results of any procedure must inherently be “better than random.” That is ...
... middle of paper ...
...oceed fairly and there would be no need for any methodology at all. As we all know, though, this world is far from perfect, and democracy in its current state is far from being perfected.
While Estlund puts forth a convincing argument for the practice of epistemic proceduralism, nevertheless I hope I have shown it is not a fool-proof plan for fair justice. Instead, I believe that an adapted form of “correctness” theory should be followed, and we should strive to arrive at the best answer possible, to any question. On paper, the process of getting from A to B may be strung out, reasoned, explain, and justified. In real life, though, I say that it doesn’t much matter how we get from A to B, as long as B is the right place in the end.
Works Cited
Estlund, David M. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2008. Print.
Justice can be achieved through various processes and principles if applied correctly, similarly justice can also be denied through these same processes and principles. This is exemplified through the Andrew Mallard case (M v The Queen 2005 HCA 68), and the missing persons case of Kieffen Raggett (2007) which shows how the incorrect application of processes like police investigations and coronial inquests can lead to justice being denied. Furthermore, legal principles such as; the rights of the accused and victims, are instrumental in achieving justice as shown through the application of these principles within these cases. These processes and principles can fail due to prejudged conclusions, police corruption, human error and cultural barriers
the most democratic it can be even though there may be a few glitches in the
Kelly defines epistemic peers as two people that have an equal familiarity with the evidence and questions surrounding an argument (Kelly, 2005 Pg.10 ). Epistemic peers must also be equals with respect to epistemic virtues like intelligence (Kelly, 2005 Pg. 10). Kelly suggests that there is no significance in someone merely disagreeing with you that would entail that you los...
According to the instrumental doctrine of rationality in the version relevant to the argument of this paper, an action (decision, policy, strategy, etc.) is rational provided it is an effective and economical means to the achievement of some de facto objective. If we formulate the instrumentalist position in terms of the familiar doctrine of the practical syllogism, the crucial thesis is that the action which forms the conclusion of the syllogism is rational provided (1) the major premise identifies a de facto objective of the agent's, and (2) the minor premise shows the action to be an effective and economical means to the achievement of that objective. The typical noninstrumentalist position, by contrast, would be that for the action in the conclusion to be one it is rational for the agent to perform, it must serve an objective it is rational for the agent to pursue: the major premise must identify a rational objective of some sort, not simply an objective the agent happens to have.
The founding principles of democracy are the will of the people and the rule of law. The former meaning that the citizens' beliefs, desires, etc. are translated into the government. The latter meaning that all individuals have equality under the law and that each individual has equal influence; this is frequently interpreted into the idea of one person, one vote (Garner, 2009). A third principle may be added to first two meta-principles as an offshoot, that the government must be transparent in its functions to achieve true democrac...
William Smith, Democracy, Deliberation and Disobedience (Paper presented at the UK Association for Legal and Social Philosophy Annual Conference, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, April 2003).
Famously, John Rawls is regarded as using reflective equilibrium (RE) to justify his principles of justice. But the point of justification by RE in Rawls's more recent work is not easily established since he regards his own work as still contractarian. In order to clarify matters, I distinguish between wide and narrow RE, as well as show that wide RE consists of several kinds of narrow RE: RE as a plea for (re)consideration, RE as a constructive procedure of choice, and safe ground RE. The connection of these REs is shown in order to reach justification. The point of introducing RE for justification is seen in opening the range of possible revisions to allow for consensus. However, (the lack of) wide RE for itself is not enough to bring about revision. Rather, an additional causal link between two kinds of RE is proposed to be necessary.
Each day, billions of people throughout the world affirm their commitment to a specific idea; to be part of a society. While this social contract is often overlooked by most citizens, their agreement to it nevertheless has far-reaching consequences. Being a member of society entails relinquishing self-autonomy to a higher authority, whose aim should be to promote the overall good of the populace. While making this decision to become part of a commonwealth is usually performed without explicit deliberation, there is a common consensus amongst philosophers that something unique to the human experience is the driving force behind this decision. Contained within this something are highly contested points of debate amongst both past and contemporary political philosophers. Two such philosophers are Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Aquinas. Each of these political writers provide detailed arguments regarding the concept of natural law, the role that reason plays in this law, whether some laws are considered truly rational, and why some people choose not to follow certain principles even when they recognize them to be rational. By analyzing each of these arguments, we will arrive at the conclusion that even though the rational principles that reason provides us can easily be disregarded by the populace, that we can still find a common good within promulgating rational doctrine.
Locke's Essay is one of the classical documents of British empirical philosophy. His official concern is with epistemology, the theory of knowledge. Locke sees the u...
The quest for knowledge, a topic often contemplated in philosophy, remains persistent with mankind seeking to understand the uncertainty in the world surrounding him. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that raises questions and provides answers about what constitutes knowledge and justifies belief. The main concerns of knowledge in epistemology are how it is defined, what the source is, how it’s acquired, what its limitations are, and what kind of knowledge is necessary. Three very well known philosophers of their time offer their different ideas on the subject of knowledge and epistemology.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It is mainly concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question of what distinguishes true or adequate knowledge from otherwise false or inadequate knowledge (Heylighen). The major branches of epistemological theory are rationalism, empiricism and mysticism. Rationalism implies that knowledge is obtained through reason and introspection. Ones ideas are justified by sense experience, but if the senses and intuition are in conflict, the sensory evidence must be discarded. In empiricism, knowledge is obtained through observation and experiment. Models and theories may be used to organize this sensory experience, but if theories contradict experience they are wrong. In mysticism, knowledge is obtained through faith, emotions or revelation but if observation or intuition contradict, the knowledge is thus deemed wrong (“Rationalism”). Doubt, as a Persian Proverb once said, is the key to knowledge. It is one of the influencing factors in the expansion of knowledge. A fact that is conside...
Epistemology is a philosophy assumption which deals with the nature and basis of the knowledge, understanding of the knowledge and authenticity of knowledge (McClean, 2012).
...argument for moral realism is strong, however, as he says, it leaves room for improvement. In separating deliberating from other kinds of decision making, and then showing how normative facts meet the criterion of indispensability, he easily meets Harman’s challenge. Additionally, he refutes what I regard as the major objections against him by showing how normative truths can still play a role in deliberation, even when other things such as desires and disbelief are factored in. He also makes a strong case as to why his indispensability argument is better than its alternatives, although some vagueness begins to show in terms of subjective truths. So, overall, it seems that he does a good job of justifying the existence of normative truths by explaining their indispensability to deliberation, however, whether they are objective or not still remains questionable.
The first ideal concept from the constitution is a representative democracy. A representative democracy is a system where the citizens elect officials to serve on their behalf. A representative democracy is a form of “Republicanism”(Marks;9/8,16). This form of democracy shouldn’t be mistaken with direct democracy. Where all of the citizens vote on public policies and what the country does. On the
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much of the debate in epistemology centers on four areas: the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification, various problems of skepticism, the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and the criteria for knowledge and justification. Epistemology addresses such questions as "What makes justified beliefs justified?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?" and fundamentally "How do we know that we know?"