Abstract

Abstract Political practices often aim to reach valuable outcomes through democratic processes. However, philosophical considerations and democratic deliberations sometimes support different conclusions about what a valuable outcome would be. This paper contributes to a research agenda that aims to reconcile recommendations that follow from these different bases. The setting for this research agenda is capabilitarian. It affirms the idea that what we should distribute are substantive freedoms to be and do things that people have reason to value. Disagreements about these valuable outcomes become particularly problematic in urgent situations such as pandemics, floods, and wildfires. These situations are urgent since they are time-sensitive and involve an impending loss of well-being. A method of compromise would help mitigate losses of well-being while respecting the aim of reaching valuable outcomes through democratic processes. I thus offer an equitable and decisive method of compromise that helps integrate philosophical considerations with democratic deliberations.

Highlights

  • In political practices, we often want decisions to help people live good lives and we want the decisions to be influenced by democratic opinions (Haybron and Tiberius 2015, p. 712ff.)

  • This paper offers a method of reaching a compromise in urgent well-being policy-work when such disagreements obtain

  • I will provide two necessary criteria for the reconciliatory research agenda to meet with regard to urgent situations involving well-being

Read more

Summary

Introduction

We often want decisions to help people live good lives and we want the decisions to be influenced by democratic opinions (Haybron and Tiberius 2015, p. 712ff.). This paper offers a method of reaching a compromise in urgent well-being policy-work when such disagreements obtain. My method of compromise engages with a novel proposal by Byskov (2017) that offers a reconciliatory research agenda for answering the vexing question of the list. The question of the list concerns who or what should decide which freedoms members of society are afforded His reconciliatory research agenda combines philosophical and democratic selections in a comprehensive list.

The Question of the List and the Reconciliatory Research Agenda’s Answer
The Question of the List
The Reconciliatory Research Agenda
Evaluative Criteria for Reconciliatory Selection Methods
The Equilibrium Criterion
The Problem of Overgeneration
The Decisiveness Criterion
A Purpose-Dependent Method of Compromise
Regulated Voting
Consensus and Non-ideal Alternatives
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.