Abstract
In public discourse, citizens are expected to discuss referring to diverse common goods such as utilitarianism, equality, and maximin principle. The discourse quality should be evaluated from multiple viewpoints. The present study conducted group discussion experiments on the treatment of low removed concentration soil outside Fukushima. We evaluated the discussions regarding three types of common goods with the revised Discourse Quality Index (DQI) and scores of the participants and observers. There were two conditions: one with information about Fukushima and the other without the information. The study examined how this different information treatment would affect the evaluations on common goods. Results from the renewed DQI indicated that the number of arguments about the maximin principle was less than on the other common goods in both conditions. Results from scores of the participants and observers found a significant difference in the evaluations of the maximin principle between conditions. Moreover, a significant difference was found in the non-informed condition, indicating that the maximin principle was less discussed than utilitarianism, while it was not found in the informed condition. This study provided the empirical findings to help make AI enable to evaluate democracy.
