Cristina Lafont

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that self-interest, suitably constrained, should be part of the deliberation that eventuates in a democratic decision, and argue for a complementary rather than antagonistic relation of deliberation to many democratic mechanisms that are not themselves deliberative.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue for a way to structure political deliberation in the public sphere that imposes the same deliberative obligations on all democratic citizens, whether religious or secular.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors defend the view that only a participatory conception of democracy is compatible with the criterion of democratic legitimacy that deliberative democrats endorse, by analyzing proposals to use mini-publics for shaping public policy and showing that their generalized use would diminish rather than increase the legitimacy of the system as a whole.

TL;DR: In this article, the authors defend the view that only a participatory conception of democracy is compatible with the criterion of democratic legitimacy that deliberative democrats endorse, by analyzing proposals to use mini-publics for shaping public policy and showing that their generalized use would diminish rather than increase the legitimacy of the deliberative system as a whole.

TL;DR: This paper argued that only an interpretation of discourse ethics as imperfect procedural justice can make compatible its professed cognitivism with its proceduralism, thus discourse ethics cannot be understood as a purely procedural account of the notion of justice.