Abstract
Jon Elster suggested that even speakers who are not moved “by aconcern for the common good”, but whose concerns are “purely self-interested”,may be still forced or induced “to substitute the language of impartial argument forthe language of self-interest”. This substitution would be the fruit of the civilizingforce of hypocrisy. This argumentative hypocrisy is a key concept forunderstanding a process of negotiation through persuasive strategies typical inconstitutional debates. Particularly, Elster believes that “the most importantrequirement” of a bargaining theory should be “that we are able to specify whatwill happen during a temporary breakdown of cooperation”. The constituents canget out of an impasse caused by a non-cooperative situation resorting toargumentative hypocrisy. The paper will analyse some examples taken from thedebate which led to the final version of the Italian Constitution.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
