Abstract

Our aim is to identify the conditions of possibility of a successfulprocess of ethical deliberation. To achieve this goal, we turn toAristotle’s definition of ‘deliberation’ as a rational process that seeks tomake decisions. We focus also on the need of incorporationof the other’s perspective in what Rawls labels ‘overlapping consensus’;on Lafont’s three requirements of deliberation; and on Ricoeur’s foursteps to fully engage with one’s commitments through action. In orderto complement the picture of deliberation we get when reading theseauthors in conjunction, we add what in our eyes constitute two majorconditions often neglected. We then point out the shortcomings of twomanifestations of the current interest in the successful processes of deliberation.Firstly, we address ethics committees. Given that their primaryconcern is precisely ethics, they should be –and often are– the organizationswhich more enthusiastically embrace and promote ethical processesof deliberation. Yet they tend to fail in some respects, which wepoint out. Secondly, we confront the contradictions surrounding therecent proliferation of codes of ethics and suggest how their value couldbe maximized.