Justification and Global Agreement

Abstract

Rorty denies that a community might be wrong in the justification of sentences. He claims that if global agreement exists, a description of the standards of justification that tell us that the entire community is wrong about the justification of a sentence, then it is not acceptable, because it wouldn't have consider all the relevant practices. One might accept that being part of the same practices is a good criterion for belonging to the same community. But there isn't a criterion with which one can identify the relevant practices. This let us imagine a situation in which global agreement is not a guarantee of the justification of a sentence, for a given community. But we also could imagine a similar example that shows the impossibility of giving sense to the idea of global agreement without justification.