Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Deliberative legitimacy requires epistemic competence that majority rule systematically undermines through aggregating uninformed preferences.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Experts systematically disagree on complex policy matters, so majority rule's epistemic weakness isn't solved by deferring to claimed competence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Determining who possesses sufficient 'epistemic competence' requires non-neutral judgments vulnerable to self-serving manipulation by those in power.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Majority rule's legitimacy derives from equal respect and inclusion, which restrictions on voting based on competence fundamentally undermine.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Empirical research shows voters often lack factual knowledge about policy effects, yet majority voting treats all preferences equally regardless of expertise.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Aggregating uninformed preferences can systematically distort outcomes away from those that would satisfy people's actual values if they understood consequences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Deliberative legitimacy requires decisions reflect reasoned judgment about the common good, not mere preference aggregation absent epistemic standards.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.