Abstract
This paper is part of a broader argument that seeks to offer a justificationfor political (and law’s) authority. The aims here are two-fold: to investigatethe role of truth in political argument and to place the problem of reasonabledisagreement. More precisely, the argument focuses on the possibilityof political deliberation. Political deliberation figures as a preliminary stageof political decision-making. It has to do with a confrontation betweenvarious incompatible substantive beliefs which, in despite of this, seem tobe all reasonable. How can citizens holding incompatible beliefs engage ina common enterprise of justifying them to one another? That is the mainquestion.
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.
