Apel versus Habermas: a trajetória controversa das duas variantes originais da ética do discurso

Â. V. Cenci
{"title":"Apel versus Habermas: a trajetória controversa das duas variantes originais da ética do discurso","authors":"Â. V. Cenci","doi":"10.5007/1677-2954.2020v19n3p656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The construction of discourse ethics, with regard to its two original variants, was held under controversy. This was due to the different ways the sphere of moral discourse was addressed in each author’s program and to the distinct ways they conceived the concept of practical reason. The answers given to the problem of the very sphere of moral shall bring about two programs of discourse ethics that eventually move away from their common roots and, finally, project two conceptions of practical reason that are quite distinct and, to great extent, incompatible, so that it is impossible to combine them under the same rubric. Thus, due to the differences in each author’s initial program concerning the formulation of a stricter notion of moral – deontological, as defended by Habermas – or broader – deontological-teleological, as proposed by Apel – the consequence will be that, for Habermas, moral and practical reason shall be placed within a theory or http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2020v19n3p656","PeriodicalId":143268,"journal":{"name":"Ethic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2020v19n3p656","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The construction of discourse ethics, with regard to its two original variants, was held under controversy. This was due to the different ways the sphere of moral discourse was addressed in each author’s program and to the distinct ways they conceived the concept of practical reason. The answers given to the problem of the very sphere of moral shall bring about two programs of discourse ethics that eventually move away from their common roots and, finally, project two conceptions of practical reason that are quite distinct and, to great extent, incompatible, so that it is impossible to combine them under the same rubric. Thus, due to the differences in each author’s initial program concerning the formulation of a stricter notion of moral – deontological, as defended by Habermas – or broader – deontological-teleological, as proposed by Apel – the consequence will be that, for Habermas, moral and practical reason shall be placed within a theory or http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2020v19n3p656
阿佩尔与哈贝马斯:话语伦理学两种原始变体的争议轨迹
话语伦理的建构,就其两种原始变体而言,一直存在争议。这是由于每个作者的纲领中对道德话语领域的处理方式不同,以及他们对实践理性概念的不同理解方式。对道德领域问题的回答将带来两种话语伦理学的程序,它们最终会远离它们的共同根源,并最终提出两个实践理性的概念,这两个概念非常不同,在很大程度上是不相容的,因此不可能将它们结合在同一个标题下。因此,由于每个作者的最初计划的不同,关于一个更严格的道德-义务论概念的形成,如哈贝马斯所捍卫的,或更广泛的-义务论-目的论,如阿佩尔所提出的,结果将是,对哈贝马斯来说,道德和实践理性应该放在一个理论或http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2020v19n3p656中
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信