Abstract

Public reason is a formal concept in political theory. There is a need to better understand how public reason might be elicited in making public decisions that involve deep uncertainty, which arises from pernicious and gross ignorance about how a system works, the boundaries of a system, and the relative value (or disvalue) of various possible outcomes. This article is the third in a series to demonstrate how ethical argument analysis—a qualitative decision-making aid—may be used to elicit public reason in the presence of deep uncertainty. The first article demonstrated how argument analysis is capable of probing deep into a single argument. The second article demonstrated how argument analysis can analyze a broad set of arguments and how argument analysis can be operationalized for use as a decision-making aid. This article demonstrates (i) the relevance of argument analysis to public reasoning, (ii) the relevance of argument analysis for decision-making under deep uncertainty, an emerging direction in decision theory, and (iii) how deep uncertainty can arise when the boundary between facts and values is inescapably entangled. This article and the previous two make these demonstrations using, as an example, the conservation and sustainable use of lions.

Highlights

  • The impact of markets for wildlife on wildlife conservation is a broad concern that involves thousands of species [1]

  • Ethical argument analysis is a practical method for inducing public reasoning or public justification

  • The analysis presented here suggests that decision-making under deep uncertainty (DMDU) may often require tools for illuminating and handling elements of a decision where normativity and empiricism are deeply entangled

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The impact of markets for wildlife on wildlife conservation is a broad concern that involves thousands of species [1]. This paper advances insight about decision-making aids for public policy pertaining to an especially controversial case, markets for African lions. We demonstrated how the case for lions can be aided by argument analysis, a qualitative decision-making tool. We provided an in-depth analysis of a single argument pertaining to the appropriateness of trophy hunting lions as a means of protecting habitat for wild lions [2]. In another paper [3]), we provided a broad analysis of a set of arguments pertaining to the appropriateness of supplying markets in Southeast Asia with skeletons of captive-raised lions originating from South Africa; the set of arguments considered there (and summarized here in Table 1) covers concerns about conservation, animal welfare and entrepreneurial freedom.

Results
Discussion
Conclusion

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.