Empathy, Not Truth: Can a Dialectical and Skeptical Argumentation Enhance Both Democracy and Human Rights Courts?

Abstract

Who is the best moral reasoner, the judge or the legislator? The aim of this paper is to refine this question, by distinguishing between different metaethical assumptions. If the meta-ethical assumptions of arguers are incompatible or if their institutional goal is to establish some truth, there is no way of entering into a constructive argumentative activity. My claim is that only when arguers renounce any epistemic temptation and feel empathy with respect to others’ arguments, can
institutions improve the quality of their judicial and democratic arguments, and therefore gain authority.