<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> (This email begins a series of threads that will branch off from the original thread: Legitimation in Votorola Practice.) <blockquote> D. Just those action norms are valid to which all possibly affected persons could agree as participants in rational discourses. </blockquote> The Discourse Principle (D) specifies (proposes) the criterion that renders an action norm valid. The criterion is NOT that any particular group of individuals actually DOES agree. The criterion is that ALL possibly affected persons COULD agree. One can appreciate the wisdom of stating the principle in this way when one considers, for example, that for a great many action norms, future generations yet unborn are included in the set of "all possibly affected persons". In large populations, it seldom happens that the set of actual participants in each particular decision comprises the full set of "all possibly affected persons". A vote count can only establish an action norm as valid if the vote count includes votes from "all possibly affected persons". In instances in which the set of actual participants does not include all possibly affected persons, the vote count is irrelevant in establishing the validity of the proposal. (If 300 Neocons in Washington D.C. unanimously agree to bomb Libya, the unanimity of the vote count does not render the action norm valid.) The key difference between "agreeing as voters" and "agreeing as participants in rational discourses" is this: <ul> <li>In voting, the vote count makes the decision.</li> <li>In rational discourse, the "last reason standing" (not successfully rebutted) makes the decision.</li> </ul> Habermas is very careful to specify that the agreements must be "as participants in rational discourses". Just as Habermas suggests, the best that we (decision participants) can do in instances involving non-participating stakeholders is to try our best to *provisionally* decide whether the action norm is valid through rational discourse. (Absent the participation of all stakeholders, we can never know for sure.) </body> </html>