Of course, it is not the case that everyone affected can “be brought to the table” every time policy decisions are being discussed and made, there are empirical limitations. And of course, Habermas does not assume that every “entity [can] fully and persuasively articulate its demands”. For example, young children are not yet morally autonomous and can not fully articulate their demands, even to themselves (although if you pay attention they have a lot to say). The point of the principle is that their demands would be the proper guides for how to treat them if those demands had been shaped by “deliberative dialogue” (vs. just any old demands that “entities” are apt to make), and because of that, those with power should strive to enunciate those demands for them and take them seriously by giving them equal weight.

Since it is not possible for everyone to be at the table and many people affected have not yet developed the virtues that would allow them to sit at the table, it is the people who are at the actual table who have to take the principle seriously (informed consent theory). They have the moral obligation to make sure they are representing the rational demands of the people of the world who should be at the table. Evil happens when those at the table only give weight to their own special interests, even if the cause is Arendt’s “banality of evil” it is still evil.

It is possible to take this obligation to represent everyone’s interests seriously, which means the normative ought ‘can” be done if people choose to be guided by the principle. Responsible parents who respect that their child is a member of Kant’s vision of “humanity as an end unto itself” do it every day when they decide for their children based on awareness that humans are a work in progress who will actively develop the virtue of moral autonomy if given a chance. So they ask, “What would my child choose if she could rationally decide for herself now, knowing that she will either grow up to live in this community or will grow up to also want the opportunity to choose her own version of the community?” Of course this is an instance of paternalism, but framing the question in this way shows moral sensitivity to the fact the child should be participating in the decision making, and will one day be able to do so.

For those unfortunates (like the mentally handicapped) who will never develop the emancipatory virtues that allow most of us to become choosers rather than merely reactors to external events, those who decide for the unfortunates have the duty to ask: “Would this policy or norm meet with their consent if they could give rational consent?”

Pearl S. Buck, in her book about her daughter (The Child Who Never Grew), tells the tale about the state hospital for the “retarded” that was a horror when she visited it. All the rules were designed for the convenience of the staff, e.g. cement floors that were easy to hose down after the mostly naked kids defecated on the floor, etc. About 10 years later, she revisited the place and it was wonderful by state hospital standards. There were rugs, and toys, and flowers and curtains and the kids had clean cloths and were laughing and playing games with the staff. She asked the new director how they had managed to turn things around, did they have new kids there now? He said “No these are the same kids. But, every day, we begin staff meetings by asking, “What would we want if we were going to be one of the patients tomorrow? We also ask would the kids give their consent to this or that policy or rule if they were capable of giving their consent? [i.e. if they could be at the table?] Our deliberations in trying to answer these questions guide us.”

What people who are “ends unto themselves” want is to give consent, and they want it to be “informed consent,” so they also want dialogue. When a policy affects more than one, then it must be shared consent (ideally consensus) which is the basis for community and democracy. In my opinion this is natural to the human species in the sense that it is an emergent property that always develops when oppression goes away. But those who want power over others (for what ever reason) always try to subvert developments that will lead in the direction of making shared consent possible. They try to indoctrinate not educate. They subvert dialogue rather than take steps to see that it emerges. This vision of shared consent after dialogue is a fragile ideal that has enemies in many places of privilege, so yes, Habermas’sKantian vision will not be easily attained. But no vision is easy to achieve, which is why it is up to those of us who are decision makers to allow the moral vision to motivate us, rather than to simply complain that the moral road is long and hard or even claim that it is impossible.

I would especially like to see the interaction between Habermas and Judith Butler, whose work has gone quite far in pointing out weaknesses in his theorization of the democratizing public sphere. One of her recent publications, Giving an Account of Oneself, brings into question the very difficulty of dialogue. As you mention above, Habermas seems to revise Kant on an important point:

“Following Kant a lone reasoner can work out what maxims can be the objects of a universal will. But Habermas introduces the dialogical dimension. The ultimately acceptable norms are those which can pass the test of acceptance by all those who would be affected by them.”

However, this “test of acceptance” is precisely the possibility Butler problematizes in her book. The idea that we can “bring everyone to the table” — or at least everyone “who would be affected by [our ethical decisions]” assumes quite a lot, including the ability of each entity to fully and persuasively articulate its demands.

I would be interested to hear what the panel on Thursday evening would say about the role religion can play in either enabling such necessary articulations or obfuscating them. Many political commentators on the left lament the way religion supposedly causes people to “vote against their demands.” I’m certain that each of you would be have an insightful and provocative answer to such a query. I just regret that I won’t be able to ask it in person!

Best of luck.