ABSTRACT
This chapter considers strategic uses of argumentation, reading Jurgen Habermas, as it were, through the lens of Schelling. It also considers the advantages and disadvantages of the modes of communication, with respect to the prospect of reaching agreement and to the quality of the agreement, if any, that is reached. The chapter discusses how apparent cases of rational argument about values or facts may, on closer analysis, turn out to be guided by self-interest. It examines for what reasons, and with what consequences, the participants in collective decision-making make strategic use of the ideas of impartiality and truth. The chapter argues that participants in collective decision-making processes are rational and motivated exclusively by self-interest or group interest. It distinguishes among three types of motives: passions, interests, and impartial reason. The strategic use of impartial arguments is a well-known fact of political life.
