Reflections on Habermas’s discourse ethics

Pieter N.J. Duvenage
{"title":"Reflections on Habermas’s discourse ethics","authors":"Pieter N.J. Duvenage","doi":"10.4102/ve.v45i1.3009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article Habermas’s discourse ethics is critically interpreted. The article starts with a brief intellectual biography of Habermas (section 1), showing that his life and work has always had a strong ethical and political dimension – leading to the concept of discourse ethics. Next, it is indicated how Habermas’s work in the 1970s culminated via four steps in his major philosophical work – the Theory of Communicative Action (section 2) published in 1981. In the next two sections Habermas Theory of Communicative Action is applied to ethics and morality in the form of his discourse ethics – the heart of this contribution (section 3). In this process the following four aspects of Habermas’s discourse ethics are discussed: Its qualified Kantian deontological dimension, as well as its universalist, cognitivist, and formalist dimensions. In the following section (4) the discussion of discourse ethics is shifted to Habermas’s theory of law, deliberative politics, and democracy which is a further application of ideas developed in his Theory of Communicative Action. The contribution then ends with some critical remarks on Habermas discourse ethics and sketch of law and politics (section 5) Three arguments are presented in this regard. First, Habermas argument is judged to be too closely related to abstract rationality. Secondly the distinction that Habermas makes between morality and ethics is critically investigated. Finally, the Habermasian use of justification in his argument is critically compared with the concept of application. These points of criticism, though, indicate that the debate on Habermas’s discourse ethics is ongoing.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article deals with the concept of discourse ethics (in the Kantian tradition of ethics) as developed firstly by Karel Otto Apel and later refined by Jurgen Habermas for his own purposes. The line of argumentation developed here has significant relevance for philosophy, moral theory, law, and theology. Discourse ethics can be considered as a contemporary version of Kantian deontological ethics after the linguistic turn.","PeriodicalId":509370,"journal":{"name":"Verbum et Ecclesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Verbum et Ecclesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v45i1.3009","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

In this article Habermas’s discourse ethics is critically interpreted. The article starts with a brief intellectual biography of Habermas (section 1), showing that his life and work has always had a strong ethical and political dimension – leading to the concept of discourse ethics. Next, it is indicated how Habermas’s work in the 1970s culminated via four steps in his major philosophical work – the Theory of Communicative Action (section 2) published in 1981. In the next two sections Habermas Theory of Communicative Action is applied to ethics and morality in the form of his discourse ethics – the heart of this contribution (section 3). In this process the following four aspects of Habermas’s discourse ethics are discussed: Its qualified Kantian deontological dimension, as well as its universalist, cognitivist, and formalist dimensions. In the following section (4) the discussion of discourse ethics is shifted to Habermas’s theory of law, deliberative politics, and democracy which is a further application of ideas developed in his Theory of Communicative Action. The contribution then ends with some critical remarks on Habermas discourse ethics and sketch of law and politics (section 5) Three arguments are presented in this regard. First, Habermas argument is judged to be too closely related to abstract rationality. Secondly the distinction that Habermas makes between morality and ethics is critically investigated. Finally, the Habermasian use of justification in his argument is critically compared with the concept of application. These points of criticism, though, indicate that the debate on Habermas’s discourse ethics is ongoing.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article deals with the concept of discourse ethics (in the Kantian tradition of ethics) as developed firstly by Karel Otto Apel and later refined by Jurgen Habermas for his own purposes. The line of argumentation developed here has significant relevance for philosophy, moral theory, law, and theology. Discourse ethics can be considered as a contemporary version of Kantian deontological ethics after the linguistic turn.
对哈贝马斯话语伦理学的思考
本文对哈贝马斯的话语伦理学进行了批判性解读。文章首先简要介绍了哈贝马斯的思想传记(第 1 部分),说明他的生活和工作始终具有强烈的伦理和政治维度,并由此产生了话语伦理学的概念。接下来,文章指出哈贝马斯在 20 世纪 70 年代的工作是如何通过四个步骤将其主要哲学著作--1981 年出版的《交际行动理论》(第 2 部分)--推向高潮的。在接下来的两节中,哈贝马斯的 "交往行动理论 "以他的 "话语伦理学 "的形式被应用于伦理道德领域--这也是本文的核心内容(第 3 节)。在此过程中,将讨论哈贝马斯话语伦理学的以下四个方面:哈贝马斯的话语伦理学的四个方面:康德式的义务论维度、普遍主义维度、认知主义维度和形式主义维度。在接下来的第 4 节中,对话语伦理学的讨论转向哈贝马斯的法律、协商政治和民主理论,这是对其 "交往行动理论"(Theory of Communicative Action)思想的进一步应用。最后,本文对哈贝马斯的话语伦理学和法律与政治素描进行了批判性评论(第 5 节),并就此提出了三个论点。首先,哈贝马斯的论点与抽象理性的关系过于密切。其次,对哈贝马斯在道德和伦理之间所作的区分进行了批判性研究。最后,对哈贝马斯在论证中使用的 "正当性 "与 "应用 "概念进行了批判性比较。这些批评意见表明,关于哈贝马斯话语伦理学的争论仍在继续:本文论述了由卡雷尔-奥托-阿佩尔(Karel Otto Apel)首先提出,随后由尤尔根-哈贝马斯(Jurgen Habermas)为自己的目的加以完善的话语伦理学概念(康德伦理学传统)。本文的论证思路对哲学、道德理论、法律和神学具有重要意义。话语伦理学可被视为语言学转向后康德义务论伦理学的当代版本。
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