Processes of citizen deliberation are often called for the instrumental reason of improving the quality of decisions. However, this paper shows that there may be political problems where inclusive deliberation may not be i) feasible or ii) desirable. Moreover, other than deliberative processes may be preferred for pragmatic reasons. We approach these issues through an analysis of two competing schools of thought. While some scholars argue that deliberation should involve objective standards, others contend that mutual justification is a sufficient test. The focus on objective standards suggests that the point is to discover the right answer, whereas mutual justification implies an intersubjective test —the issue is relativized to the deliberators. This contrast may be overdrawn, since much will depend on the nature of the problem. This, in turn, raises the question of how the nature of political problems is identified.
