Deliberation, Fair Outcome, and Empirical Evidence: An Analogy with Archives
This paper examines Norman Daniels’ approach toward “Accountability for Reasonableness” through an analogy with archives, especially with regard to qualification for deliberation, the relationship between procedure and outcome, and the necessity for empirical evidence. First, when a deliberative process is adopted, we may encounter two questions: 1) Who is in an appropriate position to deliberate upon and resolve priority-setting decisions? 2) Who should manage and maintain the results of deliberation? To answer these, we take recourse to an analogy with the case of archivist. Secondly, a deliberative process may be suspected to silence counter-claims unknowingly through its procedure; therefore, it needs an agent equivalent to an archivist. Finally, despite Daniel’s concession, “Accountability for Reasonableness” does not necessarily require the obtainment of strict empirical evidence; simple ethical implication for policy making will suffice.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.