Political decisions have the potential to greatly impact our lives. Think of decisions in relation to abortion or climate change, for example. This makes political legitimacy an important normative concern. But what makes political decisions legitimate? Are they legitimate in virtue of having support from the citizens? Democratic conceptions of political legitimacy answer in the affirmative. Such conceptions rightly highlight that legitimate political decision-making must be sensitive to disagreements among the citizens. But what if democratic decisions fail to track what there is most reason to do? What if a democratically elected government fails to take measures necessary to protect its population from threats related to climate change?

In this event, Fabienne Peter will argue that the legitimacy of political decisions doesn’t just depend on respect for the citizens’ will; rather, she will defend a novel hybrid conception of political legitimacy according to which political legitimacy also depends on how political decision-making responds to evidence for what there is most reason to do. Considering the norms that should govern political debate, Peter will examine the role of experts in politics, and will probe the responsibilities of democratically elected political leaders and as well as of citizens.

Fabienne Peter is professor of philosophy at the University of Warwick. She is known for her works on political philosophy, moral philosophy, and social epistemology. She is the current President Elect of the Aristotelian Society.

Alfred Moore is a senior lecturer in political philosophy at the University of York. He works on political theory, with particular interests in deliberative democracy, social epistemology, politics of expertise and technology and democracy.