Agreement Among All Philosophies

The deliberations of well-informed and well-established committees or commissions can go wrong in many ways. First, such groups can be co-opted to serve the partisan interests of those who appoint them (Callahan, 1992). Second, the opinion of a powerful or charismatic president, individual members or subgroups can carry more weight than they deserve. Third, pressure to reach an agreement can lead to avoiding controversial issues, underestimating risks and objections, ignoring unpopular or powerless views, not considering alternative solutions, not obtaining additional information, accepting second-hand information without criticism, or not being imaginative or resourceful in building consensus or compromise 1987, 48). An endemic problem in the commission`s deliberations is the “group thinking” defined by Irving L.Janis as “a way of thinking that people inspire when they are deeply involved in a cohesive group, when the aspiration of members unanimously reflects their motivation to realistically evaluate alternative modes of action” (Janis 1972, p. 9). With regard to the themes of education and training and school education, above, the specifically epistemal objectives of education and the themes that accompany social and virtuous studies. (The work collected at Kotzee 2013 and Baehr 2016 shows the current and growing interactions between social epistemologists, virtue e-mologists and philosophers of education.) But if, at the beginning of a group`s deliberations, a total consensus is rarely reached, it will develop more often towards the end. One thinks, for example, of questions so new or so mysterious that the members of the commission do not have a firm position on this at the beginning. “This does not mean, as Jonathan Moreno says, that they have no views or principles on it, but that they do not appreciate it to the point of being prepared to insist that their essence be represented in the solution” (Moreno 1990a, p. 43). In this regard, an open, informed, mutually respectful debate, oriented towards an informed agreement, can lead to a rapprochement both for reasons and for a consensus.