The recent progress in the development of autonomous cars has seen ethical questions come to the forefront. In particular, life and death decisions regarding the behavior of self-driving cars in trolley dilemma situations are attracting widespread interest in the recent debate. In this essay we want to ask whether we should implement a mandatory ethics setting for the whole of society or, whether every driver should have the choice to select his own personal ethics setting. While the consensus view seems (...) to be that people would not be willing to use an automated car that might sacrifice themselves in a dilemma situation, we will defend the somewhat contra-intuitive claim that this would be nevertheless in their best interest. The reason is, simply put, that a PES regime would most likely result in a prisoner’s dilemma. (shrink)

This book poses the question: How can we organize society in such a way that our disagreement about facts and norms works to the benefit of everyone? In response, it makes the argument for polycentric democracy, a political arrangement consisting of various political units that enjoy different degrees of independence. It is argued that to progress towards justice, we first need to change our attitude towards reasonable disagreement. Theorists have always viewed reasonable disagreement as nuisance, if not as a threat. (...) However, this work puts forward that the diversity of perspectives which underlie reasonable disagreement should be viewed as a resource to be harvested rather than a threat to be tamed. Resting on two key arguments, the author proposes the idea of polycentric democracy as the most capable method of making pluralism productive. The book explores what such a political order might look like and concludes that only an institutional system which is capable of profiting from diversity, such as polycentric democracy, might reasonably be expected to generate an overlapping consensus. Continuing in the tradition of Karl Popper and Friedrich August von Hayek, this book lies at the intersection of philosophy, political economy and political theory. It will be of great interest to academics and scholars working in philosophy, politics and economics. (shrink)

The genus problem of populism presents one of the most vexing conceptual questions across the social sciences: Some theorists believe that populism is nothing more than an assembly of discursive patterns, while others maintain that populism is a strategy to gain political power. Then there are those that argue that populism is a thin ideology that lacks a coherent set of guiding principles. The paper intervenes in this debate in two ways: First, it offers a methodological apparatus for evaluating and (...) developing contested concepts such as populism. Second, it puts forward and defends the claim that populism can be fruitfully understood as a coherent ideology that rests on four foundational principles. These principles, I will argue, are necessary for explaining the paradigmatic beliefs and dispositions exhibited by exponents of populism. One of the key characteristics of populism, on the account developed in this paper, is its peculiar epistemic stance. (shrink)

In recent years, tech evangelists have made headlines predicting that in the future manual driving will be outlawed. This essay will investigate the question whether a ban of human driven cars can be defended on moral grounds in a future scenario in which autonomous cars are going to be significantly safer than manually driven cars. This article will argue that in such a future scenario manually driven cars, for moral reasons, indeed should be banned from participating in regular traffic. Since (...) the moral argument for outlawing manually driven cars will likely be met by resistance by car-aficionados, in the final part of the paper, we are devising a proposal for reconciling the strong moral case for a ban of manually driven cars with the widespread fondness of manual driving. (shrink)

This essay criticizes the current approach to epistemic democracy. Epistemic democrats are preoccupied with the question of how a society can best exploit a given stock of knowledge. This article argues that the problem-solving capability of a society depends on two factors rather than one. The quality of decision-making depends both on how a democracy is able to make use of its stock of knowledge and on the size of the knowledge stock. Society’s problem-solving capability over time is therefore a (...) function of its ability to develop its knowledge exploitation mechanisms and the growth rate of its knowledge stock. Based on this enhanced model of social problem-solving, this essay compares two different political ideal types: experimental democracy, as commonly defended by epistemic democrats; and polycentric democracy, a model defended most commonly by political economists. (shrink)

Even though human smuggling is one of the central topics of contention in the political discourse about immigration, it has received virtually no attention from moral philosophy. This article aims...

What, if anything, is the import of Hayek to epistemic democracy? Although Hayek is revered by epistemic democrats for his insights into the epistemic aspects of the market sphere, it is generally believed that his theory is moot with respect to democratic reason. This paper aims to challenge this verdict. I argue that a Hayekian analysis of inclusive public deliberation contributes at least three valuable lessons: (1) Hayek makes the case that under certain conditions even unbiased deliberators are permanently unable (...) to converge on the best available policy option. Call this the problem of ‘persistent hidden policy champions’. (2) He demonstrates that to unlock hidden policy champions, reasonable minority factions need the opportunity to act on their own evidential standards. (3) He challenges epistemic democrats to think more carefully about how to design the “epistemic basic structure” (Kurtulmus and Irzik 2017) of society in order to account for persistent hidden policy champions. (shrink)

The epistemic value of a political procedure—such as democracy or a civil trial system—depends on how well it performs in arriving at decisions that are correct by some independent standard. A core assumption in the literature on epistemic democracy is that boosting the epistemic value of such a procedure makes it better overall. Even though this assumption seems innocuous (and hence has not been discussed in much detail), we will argue that it is not beyond the pale of reasonable disagreement. (...) For it is possible to increase the epistemic value of a political procedure in ways that give rise to egalitarian objections. (shrink)

Populism has taken root almost everywhere in the West. It is crucial to understand how it has come about, where its antagonistic worldview, its nativism, its illiberalism and its anti-pluralism will take us, and how we should seek to fend off this threat to liberal democracy. In particular, what could liberal answers look like? -/- This book is a collection of essays written by young and senior scholars in various fields from philosophy to economics. Part I explores populism’s nature and (...) causes, shedding light on the lure of sovereignty, the perceived representation gap and the process of radicalization, and human psychology. Part II is dedicated to observations inside the political arena, pitting liberalism and populism in a historical perspective, analyzing the risk of democratic backsliding, and asking how liberals should navigate the political need to make compromises. In Part III, the focus turns to liberal responses such as rules-based public deliberation, a liberal ethics attending to civic virtues, improved representation through the blockchain, and polycentric migration policies. Part IV, finally, houses critical engagements with influential relevant authors such as Foucault, Laclau, Berlin, and Harrington. (shrink)

Die politische Errichtung eines Cordon Sanitaire um populistische Parteien führt auf gesellschaftlicher Ebene zu einer Praxis, in der die Anliegen, Argumente und Ängste von Populisten und ihren Sympathisanten zu einem gewissen Grad tabuisiert werden. Da die Errichtung eines Cordon Sanitaire den epistemischen Zielen der Wissenschaft widerspricht, kommt es notwendig zu einem Spannungsverhältnis, wenn der Cordon Sanitaire auf die Hallen der Wissenschaft ausgedehnt wird. Dieser Beitrag setzt sich aus der Warte der Politischen Philosophie mit diesem Spannungsverhältnis auseinander. In nuce wird argumentiert, (...) dass die Universität gut beraten ist, das Primat der Wahrheitssuche in ihrem eigenen Geltungsbereich offensiv und selbstbewusst zu verteidigen. In der Wissenschaft darf nur das bessere Argument zählen. Weiter wird der Forderung inner-universitäre Gremien einzurichten, die zentral über die Einladung von heterodoxen Denkern/innen entscheiden, eine Absage erteilt, da solche Gremien den Sinn der Wissenschaftsfreiheit untergraben. (shrink)

Persistent disagreement is perhaps one of the defining features of modern liberal democracy. Disagreement, though, is not merely a philosophical nuisance, but a source of friction and conflict. The goal of this work is to inquire, whether we can conceive of a political order that might be judged superior to our current modus vivendi arrangements for settling conflict from a diverse set of normative standards or perspectives. In this essay we develop the concept of Polycentric Democracy.