哈贝马斯批判理论中的道德与合法性:规范性、认同性与团结

IF 0.2 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
David Martínez
{"title":"哈贝马斯批判理论中的道德与合法性:规范性、认同性与团结","authors":"David Martínez","doi":"10.4067/s0718-50492022000100214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to Jürgen Habermas, his theory of legitimacy is independent of morality. To justify this statement, he resorts to immanent arguments based on the historic development of modern society. However, the incorporation of the principle of discourse can be seen in the sense that legitimacy is not freed from morality of the Kantian tradition. This return of Kant opens the space for Hegelian objections. One of them is elaborated by James Finlayson, who argues that the problem in Habermas is that he reconstructs a notion of normative validity that incorporates Thomas Nagel's distinction between agent-neutral interests and agent-relative interests. The inclusion of this distinction would be problematic, as it would imply a split that would make the agent-neutral interests of morality and the agent-relative interests of empirical subjects irreconcilable. This article argues that the objection can be answered from Habermas based on the concepts of recognition and solidarity. However, these concepts are incompatible with Nagel's distinction, so the latter must be rejected.","PeriodicalId":44697,"journal":{"name":"Izquierdas","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Moralidad y legitimidad en la teoría crítica de Jürgen Habermas: normatividad, reconocimiento y solidaridad\",\"authors\":\"David Martínez\",\"doi\":\"10.4067/s0718-50492022000100214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"According to Jürgen Habermas, his theory of legitimacy is independent of morality. To justify this statement, he resorts to immanent arguments based on the historic development of modern society. However, the incorporation of the principle of discourse can be seen in the sense that legitimacy is not freed from morality of the Kantian tradition. This return of Kant opens the space for Hegelian objections. One of them is elaborated by James Finlayson, who argues that the problem in Habermas is that he reconstructs a notion of normative validity that incorporates Thomas Nagel's distinction between agent-neutral interests and agent-relative interests. The inclusion of this distinction would be problematic, as it would imply a split that would make the agent-neutral interests of morality and the agent-relative interests of empirical subjects irreconcilable. This article argues that the objection can be answered from Habermas based on the concepts of recognition and solidarity. However, these concepts are incompatible with Nagel's distinction, so the latter must be rejected.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44697,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Izquierdas\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Izquierdas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-50492022000100214\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Izquierdas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-50492022000100214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

哈贝马斯认为,他的合法性理论是独立于道德的。为了证明这一说法的正确性,他诉诸于基于现代社会历史发展的内在论证。然而,话语原则的结合可以从康德传统的合法性并没有摆脱道德的意义上看出来。康德的回归为黑格尔的反对打开了空间。其中之一由James Finlayson阐述,他认为哈贝马斯的问题在于他重构了一个规范性有效性的概念,这个概念融合了Thomas Nagel对代理中立利益和代理相对利益的区分。包含这种区分将是有问题的,因为它意味着一种分裂,这种分裂将使道德的代理人中立利益和经验主体的代理人相对利益不可调和。本文认为,哈贝马斯基于认同和团结的概念可以回答这一问题。然而,这些概念与内格尔的区分是不相容的,因此后者必须被拒绝。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Moralidad y legitimidad en la teoría crítica de Jürgen Habermas: normatividad, reconocimiento y solidaridad
According to Jürgen Habermas, his theory of legitimacy is independent of morality. To justify this statement, he resorts to immanent arguments based on the historic development of modern society. However, the incorporation of the principle of discourse can be seen in the sense that legitimacy is not freed from morality of the Kantian tradition. This return of Kant opens the space for Hegelian objections. One of them is elaborated by James Finlayson, who argues that the problem in Habermas is that he reconstructs a notion of normative validity that incorporates Thomas Nagel's distinction between agent-neutral interests and agent-relative interests. The inclusion of this distinction would be problematic, as it would imply a split that would make the agent-neutral interests of morality and the agent-relative interests of empirical subjects irreconcilable. This article argues that the objection can be answered from Habermas based on the concepts of recognition and solidarity. However, these concepts are incompatible with Nagel's distinction, so the latter must be rejected.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Izquierdas
Izquierdas POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
33.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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