Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Chapter 3: Public argument in a Democratic Society (Aikin and Talisse 2014)
Chapter 3: Public argument in a Democratic Society (Aikin and Talisse 2014)
Just as we individually aspire to believe in accordance with our best reasons, we collectively aspire to live together according to the best reasons, democracy helps us pursue this goal, bring a duty of citizenship, to argue well and remain equal citizens
Republican party 2012 - they agree on the big questions. Giving arguments, articulating reasons, responding to criticism are important to politics, the real world of democracy is situated with arguments
The only thing one really cares about is power to get this you need a large number of votes. Powerful line of critique
The appeal to argument pervades because it works, debates are argumentative settings, Romneywon the debate but his central arguments were failures. Winnign over an audience, looking 'presidential', taking a commanding tone is what a political debate is all about
The Just ion cynical view about reason and argument is parasitic upon an exercise of non-cynical reasoning and argument, a form of self-imposed verbal manipulation, with killer counter-examples that are decieving
Debates are supposed to be about reason, evidence and truth, they are orchestrated national campaign stops clouded by sound bites, media coverage and poll numbers, the truth doesn't necessarily come out.
Democratic citizens however, believe whole-heartedly in the ideals of democracy as the project of self-government by means of argument
Need to look at the breakdowns to get at what the success of democracy is
Two broad categories of manipulation: diversion and distortion, diverting our attention away from the quality of the reasons that are available, and distorting our sense of what reasons there are.
Two broad argument norms: argumentative earnestness and argumentative responsibility. Giving due attention to the quality of the reasons before us, focus on reasons, not rhetoric, biases, prejudices and other diversions. responsible endeavours bring into consideration all of the available reasons relevant to the issues at hand and seek them out
Argumentative earnestness operates internally as a set of cognitive habits that keep our attention focused on reasons, externally, the earnest arguer appeals to the reasons that count in favour of their views and attends to reasons brought up by others in support. Broad range of considerations need to be evaluated, listen to and fully consider the reasons of the opposition, no truth preserving mechanism- can move from true to false beleifs
By embodying these qualities, individuals gain a kind of intellectual self-control
Trying to identify belief-forming and belief-evaluating policies that will prove most sound over time
In order to argue earnestly and responsibly, we must be able to see ourselves as functioning within what we might call a healthy social epistemic environment. One we can count on to provide and make accessible reliable information and a broad range of reaons
Need a free social and political environment in which opinion can be freely expressed, inquiry and dialogue can be widely engaged, opinion can be freely expressed and dissent is strongly protected. We can only argue well in an intellectually open society
Need successful arguers- the basic norms of proper argument- earnestness and responsibility can only be satisfied in the presence of others who are also trying to satisfy them
In a cognitive environment, just like for our health we must rely on others to be honest, to share relevant information with us and exercise the requisite care for accuracy and precision
Free speech requires more of us than to simply allow others to speak, freedom of speech is going to bring cognitive benefits, there must be engagement between speakers and an audience
Those who are unpopular we have a a responsibility to understand them, and if we continue to think they are wrong, find compelling criticisms of them.
We must seek to engage with unfamiliar others and those who possibly hold uncommon views, and expand our uptake from the shared social epistemic environment
Democracy is that mode of social and political organisation that enables us to respect argumentative norms at the level of collective decision making
When citizens decide what to believe about public matters, they contribute to a system of collective decisions, backed by the power of law, resulting in laws that force individuals to act in certain ways
Public argument is a core of democratic politics, some beliefs apply to us by different from those of democracy
When offering public arguments, we must not only provide food reasons in favour of ones views, one must also attempt to supply one's fellow citizens with reasons that they could recognise as good reasons
When we engage in public argument, we are looking to evaluate the reasons that democratic citizens can share
A powerful critique is that democracy is self-undermining because it gives political power to those whoa re best at stimulating proper argument, the ability to convince others, much of democratic politics is conducted with imposters of proper argument