{"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