O debate Habermas versus Apel sobre a ética do discurso: reconsideração das razões da divergência

Abstract

In the debate between Habermas and Apel on the foundation of discourse ethics, many things are mixed. The article reconsiders the debate, analyzes the form of the pragmatic-transcendental argument, and distinguishes two major issues in confrontation: questions about argumentative assumptions and questions about moral obligations. We try to show that, having made the appropriate distinctions, in the first question, Apel is more right than Habermas, and that, in the second question, Habermas is more right than Apel. The implications of each position are considered.