This thesis investigates the phenomenon of polarization within the context of a deliberative democracy, where public discourse is perceived as increasingly extreme. By examining belief and...Show moreThis thesis investigates the phenomenon of polarization within the context of a deliberative democracy, where public discourse is perceived as increasingly extreme. By examining belief and affective polarization, the study highlights both the harmful and beneficial outcomes of this intensification of opposing views. On one hand, polarization can destabilize democratic endeavors and undermine social cohesion; on the other hand, it serves as an effective strategy for addressing societal injustices and promoting social change. The research draws on the philosophies of John Rawls and Seyla Benhabib to explore these dynamics, identifying gaps in their approaches to address the complexity of polarization. To minimize the negative effects while preserving the positive aspects, the article proposes fostering political virtues such as mutual respect and self-reflection. Using the polarized debate on transgender rights in the Dutch House of Representatives as a case study, the research illustrates how these virtues can enhance reasoned discourse, genuine cooperation, and mutual understanding without undermining the valuable disagreement that advances social progress. The study emphasizes the need for a regulated public sphere, such as citizen assemblies, in order to promote these political virtues and facilitate reasoned discourse.Show less
Moral disagreement strikes a deep philosophical nerve and is discussed intensively in metaethical literature, often in relation to the ‘argument from disagreement’. The family of arguments from...Show moreMoral disagreement strikes a deep philosophical nerve and is discussed intensively in metaethical literature, often in relation to the ‘argument from disagreement’. The family of arguments from disagreement establishes the existence of moral disagreement to subsequently draw certain skeptical conclusions about morality and moral practice. Such arguments are often used to argue against the supposed existence of objective moral truths. This thesis answers the question ‘What is the strongest version of the argument from disagreement against the objectivity of morality?’ by evaluating the argument’s inferential structure and the characteristics of the utilized disagreement and concludes that the strongest argument from disagreement would be one that argues deductively from faultless disagreement.Show less
