Is Bargaining a Form of Deliberating?

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophical Papers Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI:10.1080/05568641.2019.1664317
E. Ani
{"title":"Is Bargaining a Form of Deliberating?","authors":"E. Ani","doi":"10.1080/05568641.2019.1664317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Prevailing literature argues that arguing is the only appropriate mode of deliberation. The literature acknowledges bargaining, storytelling, and other forms of communication, but is unwilling to describe these as deliberation, properly speaking. The claim is that describing them as such would amount to concept stretching. My first thesis is that arguing exhausts neither the legitimate modes of deliberation nor the modes for effective deliberation. To do this I further develop a two-type categorization of issues I have employed elsewhere to show that argument alone is sufficient for bringing closure to issues in the first category, but bargaining is needed to reach agreements on issues in the second category. I observe that the more agreeable variant of the second category of issues constitutes a great deal of issues deliberated outside the purely theoretical classroom. Progressing from these observations, my second thesis is that bargaining is in fact the preeminent way of reaching agreements in political deliberation. To illustrate this, I demonstrate that normative differences and distributive consequences are inherent features of political issues.","PeriodicalId":46780,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Papers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/05568641.2019.1664317","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2019.1664317","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Prevailing literature argues that arguing is the only appropriate mode of deliberation. The literature acknowledges bargaining, storytelling, and other forms of communication, but is unwilling to describe these as deliberation, properly speaking. The claim is that describing them as such would amount to concept stretching. My first thesis is that arguing exhausts neither the legitimate modes of deliberation nor the modes for effective deliberation. To do this I further develop a two-type categorization of issues I have employed elsewhere to show that argument alone is sufficient for bringing closure to issues in the first category, but bargaining is needed to reach agreements on issues in the second category. I observe that the more agreeable variant of the second category of issues constitutes a great deal of issues deliberated outside the purely theoretical classroom. Progressing from these observations, my second thesis is that bargaining is in fact the preeminent way of reaching agreements in political deliberation. To illustrate this, I demonstrate that normative differences and distributive consequences are inherent features of political issues.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
讨价还价是一种深思熟虑吗?
主流文献认为,辩论是唯一合适的审议方式。文献承认讨价还价、讲故事和其他形式的交流,但不愿意将这些描述为深思熟虑。其主张是,这样描述它们相当于概念延伸。我的第一个论点是,辩论既没有穷尽正当的审议模式,也没有穷尽有效的审议模式。为了做到这一点,我进一步发展了我在其他地方使用的两类问题分类,以表明仅凭辩论就足以解决第一类问题,但需要讨价还价才能就第二类问题达成协议。我观察到,第二类问题的更令人满意的变体构成了在纯理论课堂之外审议的大量问题。根据这些观察,我的第二个论点是,讨价还价实际上是在政治审议中达成协议的最佳方式。为了说明这一点,我证明了规范性差异和分配后果是政治问题的固有特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Philosophical Papers
Philosophical Papers PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Philosophical Papers is an international, generalist journal of philosophy edited in South Africa Original Articles: Articles appearing in regular issues are original, high-quality, and stand-alone, and are written for the general professional philosopher. Submissions are welcome in any area of philosophy and undergo a process of peer review based on initial editor screening and refereeing by (usually) two referees. Special Issues: Topic-based special issues are comprised of both invited and submitted papers selected by guest editors. Recent special issues have included ''Philosophy''s Therapeutic Potential'' (2014, editor Dylan Futter); ''Aging and the Elderly'' (2012, editors Tom Martin and Samantha Vice); ''The Problem of the Criterion'' (2011, editor Mark Nelson); ''Retributive Emotions'' (2010, editor Lucy Allais); ‘Rape and its Meaning/s’ (2009, editor Louise du Toit). Calls for papers for upcoming special issues can be found here. Ideas for future special issues are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Wittgenstein’s Movements of Thought and the Socratic Tradition of Philosophy Sartrean Magic and the Impossibility of Death Decolonising Philosophy Hostile Scaffolding Development and Modernity in Africa: An Intercultural Philosophical Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1