Such a responsibility would apply, in their view of the concept of deliberative democracy, to anyone who engages in democratic deliberation. Thus in contemporary democratic societies this would include lawmakers, other public officials, and candidates for public office; journalists, mass media figures, and internet bloggers; business, public interest, or religious organizations; and members of the general public when discussing public matters with one another.
The principles and values underlying the conception of the public interest—held widely by democratic deliberators—often run deep, sometimes to the point of willingness to die in their defense. The deep commitment of such deliberators, however, would coexist along with the realization that any reasonable person affirms diverse principles and values. Among these no value is ultimate and no principle is absolute (except, possibly, as a matter of philosophical or theological theory, rather than as a practical guide to decision).
Democratic deliberators thus understand that new factual information, or arguments one had not considered previously, can change a person’s mind concerning which deeply held values or principles have priority in a particular situation. They regard the depth and intensity of their commitments to the values and principles they affirm as entailing a responsibility to consider carefully the opinions of those with whom they disagree on public issues. Only by doing so, they realize, is it possible to achieve understanding of how their own affirmed values and principles apply with respect to the issues.
The distinctive attitude of democratic deliberators toward discourse on public matters can be referred to appropriately as the attitude intrinsic to democratic deliberation. Such an attitude consists of the following four elements:
(1) conception of themselves as holders of rights essential to the moral justification of American democracy; these include, but are not limited to, the following rights, which the philosopher John Rawls refers to as “the system of basic liberty”: “political liberty . . . freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of the person, along with the right to hold personal property, and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure, as defined by the rule of law”;11
(2) recognition that reasonable people often disagree about interpretation of the grounding values and principles as well as about how the morally central rights apply with respect to diverse pressing issues;
(3) realization that, for practical purposes, no value is ultimate and no principle is absolute;
(4) in light of (1), (2), and (3), conception of themselves as bearers of the following responsibilities:
(a) willingness to listen to expressions of viewpoints with which one disagrees;
(b) careful consideration of all viewpoints, including both one’s own and those with which one disagrees strongly;
(c) exercise of restraint in the context of disagreements over controversial, contentiously disputed, highly viewpoint-dependent, and difficult-to-resolve matters;
(d) readiness to defend others from violation of their rights as members of the American democratic body politic.
The notion of an American democratic body politic whose members share widely and deeply the attitude intrinsic to democratic deliberation corresponds with actual fact (either at this time or at any other time throughout American history), only to a very limited extent. The notion, however, denotes an aspirational ideal—the best attitude that the members could exemplify, as contrasted with an attitude beyond the realm of human capability.
When the attitude intrinsic to democratic deliberation is shared widely and deeply, American democratic government approaches more closely to the ideal of self-government or, in the words of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, “government of the people by the people, and for the people.”12
Exercising rights, fulfilling responsibilities, and exemplifying ideals as a member of the American democratic body politic in ways that express the attitude intrinsic to democratic deliberation do not require an expert grasp of public issues. It does, however, include the following five key abilities and kinds of knowledge and awareness:
• knowledge concerning fundamental aspects of the constitutional structure of American government and basic facts of American history;
• understanding of the reasons that justify the rights and responsibilities of membership in the American democratic body politic, especially the strong right of free expression essential to democratic deliberation;
• recognition, in light of such justifying reasons, of the great extent to which reasonable persons interpret differently the rights and responsibilities of members of the American democratic body politic;
• ability to follow lines of reasoning in arguments concerning public affairs, and, especially, to recognize logical gaps and inconsistencies; and
• ability to recognize whether factual evidence does or does not clearly support a particular conclusion, and readiness to exercise this ability regardless of the conclusions that may ensue.
The knowledge and abilities embodied in the above five elements are not possessed only by experts. Nonetheless, they seldom emerge naturally in the cognitive and social development of individuals. Rather, they require cultivation, for which in most cases an appropriate K–12 education is indispensable. Without an appropriate K–12 education, most people would lack the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and abilities necessary to exercise the rights and fulfill the responsibilities of members of the American democratic body politic in ways that exemplify the attitude intrinsic to democratic deliberation.
(b) Self-Fulfillment
Self-fulfillment, viewed as integral to a person’s seeking a good life, has two dimensions—aspiration fulfillment and capacity fulfillment. Apropos aspiration fulfillment, the term “aspiration” refers to a person’s deep desires—those she is willing to exert great effort and make considerable sacrifices to fulfill. Having such aspirations is essential for pursuing a self-defined good life with coherent focus and direction.
Aspirations are not cast in stone. Over the course of a typical human life a person modifies, eliminates, and/or forms additional aspirations in response to factors such as developmental life-stage changes, assessments and reassessments of one’s own capabilities, and estimations of one’s available resources. A wide array of factors could influence a person’s various aspirations (e.g., background, cultural and social values, diverse personal experiences, or even chance events).
In the final analysis, however, a person chooses her own aspirations. In Alan Gewirth’s words, “[A]spirations are themselves chosen, not merely undergone. Even if what you aspire to reflects your upbringing, including your cultural milieu, you can take effective cognizance of your aspirations, and decide whether to maintain them or to seek others.”13
The concept of choice thus enters into the idea of the relationship between self-fulfillment and a good human life at two points relative to aspirations. The aspirations fulfilled when a person has a good life are (i) chosen by that person and (ii) fulfilled mostly by her voluntary efforts, which reflect her choices of action.
The second dimension of self-fulfillment concerns capacities, rather than aspirations. The relationship between capacity fulfillment and a good human life is well stated in the following words of Joel Feinberg:
Self-fulfillment is variously described, but it surely involves as necessary elements the development of one’s chief aptitudes into genuine talents in a life that gives them scope, an unfolding of all basic tendencies and inclinations, both those of the species and those that are peculiar to the individual, and an active realization of the universal propensities to plan, design, and make order.14