Co-deliberation, Joint Decision, and Testimony about Reasons
Reply to Tobias Steinig. Experts, Teachers and Their Epistemic Roles in Normative and Non-normative Domains, in: Analyse & Kritik 34, 251 – 274
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11308482 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Karen Jones (0000-0002-4787-6830, corresponding author), Karen Jane Jones (0000-0001-6970-9462), François Schroeter (0000-0001-9401-4961) |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 209-216 |
| Publication date | 2014-05-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Analyse & Kritik (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0171-5860 • E-ISSN: 2365-9858 |
| Publisher | Walter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1515/auk-2014-0109 |
| OpenAlex | W824544097 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 3 |
We defend the claim that there can be testimonial transfer of reasons against Steinig’s recent objections. In addition, we argue that the literature on testimony about moral reasons misunderstands what is at stake in the possibility of second-hand orientation towards moral reasons. A moral community faces two different but related tasks: one theoretical (working out what things are of genuine value and how to rank goods and ends) and one practical (engaging in joint action and social coordination). In between, simultaneously theoretical and practical, lies the activity of co-deliberation. Virtuous participation in co-deliberation can require limited moral deference. Refusal to recognize this, combined with excess self-trust, can derail co-deliberation
Action (physics · Business · Deference · Deliberation · Epistemology · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Rationality · Sociology · Testimonial · Value (mathematics · Computer Science · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Free Will and Agency · Law · Philosophy · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
| Highly cited | No |
|---|