ever finding the risky experimental apparatus that would allow them
to define their own problemsthemselvesinstead of simply answering
the question asked. To parody Figaro: “In terms of the virtues that we
require of objects, do you know many humans worthy of being non-
humans?”^57
The importance of the separation of powers between the two as-
semblies is quite clear: if we intervene and disturb this second type of
inquiry by raising the question of the candidates’ compatibility with
the collective, we will never succeed in discovering a relevant jury for
each proposition. On the contrary, we will want to speed things up by
eliminating from the jury those whose presence would risk validating
the existence of beings that must not be part of the collective—accord-
ing to the lower house at the preceding stage. This was the source, un-
der the old Constitution, of the greatest indignation: “If drug addicts
make the decisions on drug policy, where are we headed?” “If people
who believe in flying saucers sit on the jury that has to decide about
the presence of flying saucers among us, we’ve opened the door to all
sorts of madness.” “If the Masai have to pass judgment, along with ele-
phant specialists, on the experiment that makes elephants speak, how
are indisputable data going to be produced?” “If human embryos have
to give their opinion against elderly victims of Parkinson’s disease,
that’s the end of scientific progress.” These indignant reactions came
across as the expression of morality itself, in the framework of mod-
ernism, whereas they broke the essential condition posed by the ethics
of discussion: no one, as Habermas says so eloquently, can be brought
to apply the results of a decision if he has not participated in the dis-
cussion that led to the decision.
Like all the great moral principles invented to defend humans
against objectivization, this excellent principle applies to all: humans
and nonhumans. Moreover, its application is not contested if we are
told that astrophysicists have to sit on the jury that decides about the
lasting existence of pulsars. However, here too we have to ask whether
the astrophysicists have to sit on the juryalone.Once again, the collab-
oration of skills makes it possible to establish the list of jury members
in an appropriate way. How can we detect those whose lives will be
profoundly modified by the arrival of pulsars? They may not all wear
lab coats. Who are they? Where are they hiding? How can we recog-
nize them? How can we summon them? How can we get them to
SKILLS FOR THE COLLECTIVE
171