I'm interested in the oldest and/or most notable articulation of what a potential ideal decision-making / governance approach would aspire to.
More concretely, consider an idealized decision-making process for a group where:
- It knows everything relevant that could be known.
- It can think and reason as much as necessary, considering all possible arguments, future scenarios, etc. and their implications.
- It knows itself perfectly and has perfect self-control (both individually, collectively, and in combination with whatever supporting tools it is using).
- It is able to identify that which has the most common ground in order to navigate disagreements and come to as coherent of a consensus as is possible.
There also might be a 5th criteria that could make this 'democratic'—that everyone being impacted by the decision is equally included.
This all describes a potential aspirational, unattainable ideal for all but the most simple decisions (e.g. toward the end of a game of tic tac toe, this might be possible!). It can be considered a potential rubric by which one might measure a group decision-making process against. I'm curious to find a name for this ideal/rubric/aspiration, or at least its components. This ideal seems like the sort of thing that would have been mentioned by even the 'ancients' across different philosophical cultures.
I'm also interested in who has created those names, or described this sort of ideal in the past, either notable philosophers or notable non-philosophers who have written about this—e.g. leaders, scientists, etc.
One of the closest examples of this that I am aware of in mainstream discourse is the idea of "idealized deliberation" as articulated by e.g. Philip Kitcher, but I would be very surprised if he was the first!