Search

In this paper I discuss some problems for epistemic democracy as it is presented and defended by Ivan Cerovac in his book Epistemic Democracy and Political Legitimacy (2020). I discuss three problems I think are present in his discussion about the role of experts in democratic deliberation. The first problem is concerned with what the proper design for the educative role of technical experts is in deliberative democracy. The second problem deals with the question if there is a certain moral duty of justification towards other citizens of our choice of normative experts. This implies that, in the first place, we have a duty to consult opinions of those who know better than us when we are in the process of enacting decisions that have an influence on the lives of other citizens. Finally, I briefly mention the problem of Constitutional or Supreme Court; namely, are they normative experts or technical experts because this group of experts is not present in Cerovac’s discussion of the role of experts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his book In a Better World? Public Reason and Biotechnologies Elvio Baccarini employs public reason argument to justify legitimate use of genetic interventions. According to his argument policies of genetic interventions are legitimate if and only if they (i) correct generally recognized genetic impairments and disabilities; (ii) add talents without removing other talents; and (iii) enhance given or added talents without removing any other. In my discussion I find third requirement problematic. But, even if there is suitable public reason answer to this worry I believe that it still has problems connected to justice of such policies if they will be only affordable to higher classes of society. I claim that in these circumstances we have good reasons to ban such interventions. I try to argue that this ban is not the form of levelling down objection; that these policies will endanger social bases of self-respect and that we have good reasons to believe that if such technologies are available the scope of distributive justice changes to include distribution of talents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]