Most recently, this has been in the context of deliberations regarding possible U.S. actions to reduced carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions linked with global climate change, as in HR 2454, the Waxman-Markey bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as in proposals developing in the Senate.
We might note, following Baier, (1958, chapter 6) that we think about reasons in three main contexts: contexts of justification, contexts of explanation and contexts of deliberation.
Contexts of deliberation are essentially contexts where we look for and evaluate candidate justifying reasons for doing or refraining from various actions with a view to determining what to do.
Sincerity may sometimes matter in the context of public deliberation (e.g., in order to be able to predict the likelihood of future courses of action on the basis of present declarations by politicians), but certainly not for exactly the same reasons and to the same extent as it does in private relationships.
In any case of this kind, where it is assumed that the facts cannot be established with certainty, considerations of what is plausible may, given sufficient ingenuity, be adduced on either side, and similar arguments can be adduced in the context of political deliberation, where the future outcome cannot be certain and the decision has to turn on the balance of probabilities.
So in the context of Fed deliberations, in particular identifying the next Fed chair, we should ask: Who is a valid candidate that, with regard to the economy of nature, is not dumb, dumber, or Summers?
Child dissent was not discussed, nor was the possibility that the voices of some members of the community might not be heard in the context of community deliberations or assemblies.
However, we would question whether it is or should be accepted practice for editors who are also authors to initiate an expedited process for their own papers, or to suggest that they would be willing to do so in order to advance the interests of a regulated industry that has hired them in the context of regulatory deliberations.
To illuminate the complexity of deliberation in this context, we used a qualitative research design.
In doing so we make a distinction between System 1 Societal Deliberation and System 2 Societal Deliberation and discuss how this can help structure societal deliberation in the context of nuclear emergencies.
