Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T00:03:19.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Consensus Project and Three Levels of Deliberation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2018

EMMANUEL IFEANYI ANI
EMMANUEL IFEANYI ANI*
Affiliation:
University of Ghana
*
*<[email protected]>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The basic argument is that the consensus debate has not been very meaningful until now because consensus has not been closely studied as a concept, and deliberation has not been studied precisely in terms of the propensity to reach common agreement. In particular, deliberation—as well as issues for deliberation—has not been categorized into different levels with a view to exposing the varying challenges of reaching common agreement and the kinds of deliberative approaches entailed in each category. In this research, I attempt to provide this categorization in order to clarify the debate.

L’argument de base de cet article est que le débat consensuel n’a pas été une notion très significative jusqu’à présent parce que le consensus n’a pas été étudié de manière approfondie en tant que concept et que la délibération n’a pas été étudiée précisément en termes de sa propension à parvenir à un accord commun. En particulier, la délibération et les problèmes qui en découlent n’ont pas été classées en plusieurs niveaux afin d’exposer les différents défis qui se posent lorsque l’on tente de parvenir à un accord et les types d’approches délibératives impliquées dans chaque catégorie. La présente recherche propose une telle catégorisation dans le but de clarifier davantage le débat.

Keywords

consensusdeliberationfactsvaluesinterestsreasons
Type
Original Article/Article original
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 299 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ani, E.I. 2014 “On Agreed Actions without Agreed Notions.” South African Journal of Philosophy 33 (3): 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ani, E.I. 2014 “On Traditional African Consensual Rationality.” Journal of Political Philosophy 22 (3): 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busia, K. 1967 Africa in Search of Democracy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Busia, K. 1968 The Position of the Chief in the Modern Political System of the Ashanti. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
Coglianese, C. 2000 “Is Consensus an Appropriate Basis for Regulatory Policy?” Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=270488. (Accessed 13 June 2016.)Google Scholar
Cranford, R.E., and Doudera, A.E. (eds.) 1984 Institutional Ethics Committees and Health Care Decision Making. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Health Administration Press.Google Scholar
Eze, E.C. 2000 “Democracy or Consensus? Response to Wiredu.” Polylog. Available at: http://them.polylog.org/2/fee-en.htm. (Accessed 16 January 2018.)Google Scholar
Fost, N., and Cranford, R.E.. 1985 “Hospital Ethics Committees: Administrative Aspects.” Journal of the American Medical Association 253 (18): 2687–2692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuerstein, M. 2014 “Democratic Consensus as an Essential Byproduct.” Journal of Political Philosophy 22 (3): 282–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, A., and Thompson, D. 1990 “Moral Conflict and Political Consensus.” Ethics 101 (1): 64–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacques, C. 2011 “Alterity in the Discourse of African Philosophy: A Forgotten Absence,” in Reclaiming the Human Sciences through African Perspectives Vol. II, edited by Lauer, Helen and Ayidoho, Kofi. Legon-Accra: Sub-Saharan Publishers, pp. 1017–1030.Google Scholar
Jones, P., and O’Flynn, I. 2013 “Can a Compromise be Fair?” Philosophy, Politics, and Economics 12 (2): 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalumba, K.M. 2015 “Consensus and Federalism in Contemporary African Political Philosophy.” Philosophical Papers 44 (1): 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kliegman, R.M., Mahowald, M.B., and Younger, S.J. 1986 “In our Best Interests: Experience and Workings of an Ethic Review Committee.” Journal of Pediatrics 188: 178–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landemore, H., and Page, S. 2015 “Deliberation and Disagreement: Problem Solving, Prediction, and Positive Dissensus.” Politics, Philosophy and Economics 14 (3): 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larmore, C. 1987 Patterns of Moral Complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepora, C. 2012 “On Compromise and Being Compromised.” Journal of Political Philosophy. 20 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynn, J. 1984 “Roles and Functions of Institutional Ethics Committees: The President’s Commission’s View,” in, Institutional Ethics Committees and Health Care Decision Making, edited by Cranford, Ronald E. and Edward Doudera, A.. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Health Administration Press, pp. 22–30.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. 1983 Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Matolino, B. 2009 “A Response to Eze’s Critique of Wiredu’s Consensual Democracy.” South African Journal of Philosophy 28 (1): 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matolino, B. 2013 “The Nature of Opposition in Kwasi Wiredu’s Democracy by Consensus.” African Studies 72 (1): 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, J. 1988 “Ethics by Committee: The Moral Authority of Consensus.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (4): 411–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neblo, M.A. 2007 “Family Disputes in Defining and Measuring Deliberation.” Swiss Political Science Review 13 (4): 527–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J.A. 1984 “Ethics Committees in Hospitals: Alternative Structures and Responsibilities.” Connecticut Medicine 48 (7): 441–444.Google Scholar
Steenbergen, M.R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., and Steiner, J. 2003 “Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index.” Comparative European Politics 1 (1): 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. 1997 “Deliberation, Democracy, Disagreement,” in Justice and Democracy: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, edited by Bontekoe, R. and Stepaniants, M.. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 93–117.Google Scholar
Tang, Y., and Parsons, S. 2005 “Argument-Based Dialogues for Deliberation.” Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1082557&dl=ACM&coll=DL&CFID=630001366&CFTOKEN=62250450. (Accessed 13 June 2016).Google Scholar
Wesolowska, E. 2007 “Social Processes of Antagonism and Synergy in Deliberating Groups.” Swiss Political Science Review 13 (4): 663–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiredu, K. 1996 Cultural Universals and Particulars. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Wiredu, K. 2011 “State, Civil Society and Democracy in Africa,” in Reclaiming the Human Sciences Through African Perspectives Vol. II, edited by Lauer, Helen and Ayidoho, Kofi. Legon-Accra: Sub-Saharan Publishers, pp. 1055–1066.Google Scholar