对民主审议的无声挑战采取行动:六行动者框架。

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Bioethics Pub Date : 2026-10-14 Epub Date: 2026-09-09 DOI:10.1111/bioe.70180
Julian C. Jamison
{"title":"对民主审议的无声挑战采取行动:六行动者框架。","authors":"Julian C. Jamison","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Political philosophers have long recognized that key stakeholders in policy decisions—children, future generations, nonhuman animals, and individuals with severe cognitive impairments—are structurally unable to participate in the deliberative processes meant to legitimate those decisions. This paper argues that such “voicelessness” is not a marginal complication to be accommodated at the edges of deliberative democracy (DD), but a first-order problem for exactly the large-scale, high-stakes domains—health, biotechnology, and environmental policy chief among them—where the voiceless often constitute the majority of those affected. This exclusion risks systematically neglecting crucial interests and suggests that some degree of surrogacy or representation by proxy is functionally unavoidable, whether or not DD's more demanding commitment to reasoned, preference-transforming deliberation is in play. Building on this recognition, and after critiquing the feasibility of idealized deliberative democracy as well as partial solutions implied by existing work, this paper's central contribution is a more pragmatic, ethically robust Six-Actor Framework. The framework delineates specific roles for policymakers, target populations, general laypeople, technical domain experts, and two novel categories: “benevolent partisans” (e.g., caregivers) and “agent-specific experts” tasked with interpreting or forecasting the interests of the voiceless. The utility of this structured approach is illustrated through three high-stakes policy domains: constructing global health metrics (DALYs) for cost-effectiveness analysis, animal welfare regulation, and the challenges involved when impacting the very existence of future people. This paper offers a path toward a policy process that is both practicable and ethically defensible, specifically for large-scale, high-priority global challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"40 9","pages":"1000-1008"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.70180","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acting on the Voicelessness Challenge to Democratic Deliberation: A Six-Actor Framework\",\"authors\":\"Julian C. Jamison\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bioe.70180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Political philosophers have long recognized that key stakeholders in policy decisions—children, future generations, nonhuman animals, and individuals with severe cognitive impairments—are structurally unable to participate in the deliberative processes meant to legitimate those decisions. This paper argues that such “voicelessness” is not a marginal complication to be accommodated at the edges of deliberative democracy (DD), but a first-order problem for exactly the large-scale, high-stakes domains—health, biotechnology, and environmental policy chief among them—where the voiceless often constitute the majority of those affected. This exclusion risks systematically neglecting crucial interests and suggests that some degree of surrogacy or representation by proxy is functionally unavoidable, whether or not DD's more demanding commitment to reasoned, preference-transforming deliberation is in play. Building on this recognition, and after critiquing the feasibility of idealized deliberative democracy as well as partial solutions implied by existing work, this paper's central contribution is a more pragmatic, ethically robust Six-Actor Framework. The framework delineates specific roles for policymakers, target populations, general laypeople, technical domain experts, and two novel categories: “benevolent partisans” (e.g., caregivers) and “agent-specific experts” tasked with interpreting or forecasting the interests of the voiceless. The utility of this structured approach is illustrated through three high-stakes policy domains: constructing global health metrics (DALYs) for cost-effectiveness analysis, animal welfare regulation, and the challenges involved when impacting the very existence of future people. This paper offers a path toward a policy process that is both practicable and ethically defensible, specifically for large-scale, high-priority global challenges.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioethics\",\"volume\":\"40 9\",\"pages\":\"1000-1008\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.70180\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.70180\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2026/9/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.70180","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

政治哲学家们早就认识到,政策决策的关键利益相关者——儿童、后代、非人类动物和有严重认知障碍的个人——在结构上无法参与旨在使这些决策合法化的审议过程。本文认为,这种“无话语权”并不是协商民主(DD)的边缘问题,而是大规模、高风险领域的首要问题——其中包括健康、生物技术和环境政策——在这些领域,无话语权的人往往构成了受影响的大多数。这种排斥有系统地忽视关键利益的风险,并表明某种程度的代理或代理代表在功能上是不可避免的,无论DD是否对理性的、改变偏好的审议做出了更严格的承诺。在这一认识的基础上,在对理想化的协商民主的可行性以及现有工作所暗示的部分解决方案进行了批评之后,本文的核心贡献是一个更务实、道德上更健全的六行动者框架。该框架描述了政策制定者、目标人群、一般外行人、技术领域专家的具体角色,以及两个新类别:“仁慈的游击队员”(例如,照顾者)和“特定代理专家”,其任务是解释或预测无声者的利益。通过三个高风险政策领域说明了这种结构化方法的效用:构建用于成本效益分析的全球健康指标(DALYs)、动物福利监管以及影响未来人类生存时所涉及的挑战。本文为政策制定过程提供了一条既可行又合乎道德的路径,特别是针对大规模、高优先级的全球挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Acting on the Voicelessness Challenge to Democratic Deliberation: A Six-Actor Framework

Political philosophers have long recognized that key stakeholders in policy decisions—children, future generations, nonhuman animals, and individuals with severe cognitive impairments—are structurally unable to participate in the deliberative processes meant to legitimate those decisions. This paper argues that such “voicelessness” is not a marginal complication to be accommodated at the edges of deliberative democracy (DD), but a first-order problem for exactly the large-scale, high-stakes domains—health, biotechnology, and environmental policy chief among them—where the voiceless often constitute the majority of those affected. This exclusion risks systematically neglecting crucial interests and suggests that some degree of surrogacy or representation by proxy is functionally unavoidable, whether or not DD's more demanding commitment to reasoned, preference-transforming deliberation is in play. Building on this recognition, and after critiquing the feasibility of idealized deliberative democracy as well as partial solutions implied by existing work, this paper's central contribution is a more pragmatic, ethically robust Six-Actor Framework. The framework delineates specific roles for policymakers, target populations, general laypeople, technical domain experts, and two novel categories: “benevolent partisans” (e.g., caregivers) and “agent-specific experts” tasked with interpreting or forecasting the interests of the voiceless. The utility of this structured approach is illustrated through three high-stakes policy domains: constructing global health metrics (DALYs) for cost-effectiveness analysis, animal welfare regulation, and the challenges involved when impacting the very existence of future people. This paper offers a path toward a policy process that is both practicable and ethically defensible, specifically for large-scale, high-priority global challenges.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书