Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:31:08.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Epistemic Value of the Democratic Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

William Nelson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An epistemic theory of democracy, I assume, is meant to provide on answer to the question of why democracy is desirable. It does so by trying to show how the democratic process can have epistemic value. I begin by describing a couple of examples of epistemic theories in the literature and bringing out what they presuppose. I then examine a particular type of theory, worked out most thoroughly by Joshua Cohen, which seems to imply that democracy has epistemic value. The key idea in this theory is that its conception of political right is itself a democratic conception – roughly, what is right is constituted by a consensus among ideal democratic agents. If democratic procedures are modeled on this conception of right, the theory proposes, the fact that we follow these procedures in decision-making will give us reason to believe that the outcomes are themselves right. I do not reject the democratic conception of the right, but I argue that the theory breaks down when we try to extend its conclusions to real-world democratic procedures. While it invites interesting speculation about possible reforms, it gives us little reason to accept the outcomes of actual democratic politics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 19 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

REFERENCES

Barry, Brian. 1965. Political Argument. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bohman, James and Rehg, William (eds.). 1997. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey and Lomasky, Loren E. (eds.). 1989. Politics and Process: New Essays in Democratic Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1986. “Epistemic Populism.” Ethics 97: 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy” In Hamlin, A. and Pettit, P. (eds.), The Good Polity. Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, pp. 67–91 (page references are to this version). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1999. “Reflections on Habermas on Democracy.” Ratio Juris 12: 385–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, Jules and Ferejohn, John. 1986. “Democracy and Social Choice.” Ethics 97: 6–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1997. “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory.” In Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, pp. 3–33. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, David. 1997. “Beyond Fairness and Deliberation: The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority.” In Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, pp. 173–204. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, David. 2003. “The Democracy/Contractualism Analogy.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 31: 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Samuel. 2000. “Deliberative Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 29: 371–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, Archon. 2004. Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbard, Allan. 1985. “What's Morally Special about Free Exchange?” Social Philosophy & Policy 2: 20–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, William. 1980. On Justifying Democracy. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Nelson, William. 1989. “Evaluating the Institutions of Liberal Democracy.” In Brennan, G. and Lomasky, L. (eds.), Politics and Process: New Essays in Democratic Thought, pp. 60–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, William. 2005. Review of Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy, by Fung, Archon. Ethics 115: 402–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1865/1958. Considerations on Representative Government. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. 1998. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar