Between Full Endorsement and Blind Deference

10Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In Democracy Without Shortcuts, Cristina Lafont advocates for the ‘full endorsement’ of laws and policies by all subject to them instead of ‘blind deference’ to the judgement of others. But if ‘full endorsement’ means anything like ‘complete consensus’ it is an unattainable ideal, and there are many perfectly reasonable ways short of ‘blind deference’ by which we take into account inputs from others when arriving at our own decisions. This article is devoted to exploring that middle ground—on which Lafont herself seems to agree we must always be operating, based on a closer reading of her book. The key to avoiding ‘blind deference’, I argue, is exercising your own independent judgement in deciding when and how far to defer to which others.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Goodin, R. E. (2020). Between Full Endorsement and Blind Deference. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 16(2), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.393

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free