JUSTIFICATION – DELIBERATION

People justify an answer to an argumentative question that has already been posed and accepted, either individually, or as a third parties,  or as a group that has now reached a decision.  They deliberate on an open argumentative question, when the participants  have not yet reached a decision.
Deliberation occurs when there is doubt about what to do or believe, whereas justification occurs after a decision has been made.
The starting point determines the difference between justification and deliberation.

— Deliberation intervenes in contexts of discovery. It moves from argument to conclusion. A decision must be made, so I deliberate to construct it through internal or collaborative deliberation. The arguments condition the conclusion. The argumentation:

Question: Should I resign?
Deliberation: I weigh the pros and cons.
The answer states the conclusion: I resign.

— In the context of justification, the discourse shifts from conclusion to argument. I have resigned, this is a practical reality.

Question: Why did you resign? Justify this unexpected decision!
Justification: I was sick and didn’t get along with my boss.

When I have to account for a decision I’ve made, I explain it. I recount the good reasons I made it, and, if necessary, invent new ones. In this case, the conclusion determines the arguments.
Deliberation leads to a conclusion introduced by so, therefore; while justification in introduces good reasons with since.

The mechanisms of argumentation apply to both justification and deliberation. I deliberate, I reach a conclusion and make my decision. When I am asked to justify the decision, I use the same arguments, that were deliberative to explain it.

In the case of deliberation, there is real uncertainty about the conclusion, which emerges during the course of a cognitive and interactive process.
In the case of justification, the conclusion is already there. Justification tends to eliminate doubts and counterarguments, while stimulating the production of new arguments.
Private arguments made during internal deliberation may not align with the arguments given publicly to justify the same conclusion, see motives and reasons.

Situations of full deliberation and full justification are borderline cases. In the first case, I hesitate between several options, while in the second case I fully assume my decision and I’m sure I did well.
The same arguer may oscillate between justification and deliberation if, for example, during justification, he questions the decision he has already made, or is about to change his mind.

If we assume that every argument presented as deliberative is actually oriented toward an unconscious decision, then everything is justificatory.
However the institutional organization of debates reintroduces deliberation. A debate may well be deliberative if both parties come with firmly established and duly justified positions and conclusions. The clash of opposing justifications produces deliberation.