Discourse ethics is aphilosophical theory of morality, attempting to updateKantian ethics for modernegalitarian intuitions andsocial epistemology.[1] The theory originated with German philosophersJürgen Habermas andKarl-Otto Apel, and variations have been used byFrank Van Dun and Habermas' studentHans-Hermann Hoppe.[2]
Kant extracted moral principles from the necessities forced upon a rational subject reflecting on the world. Habermas extracted moral principles from the necessities forced upon individuals engaged in the discursive justification of validity claims, from the inescapable presuppositions of communication and argumentation.
The simplest form of discourse ethics is Habermas' "Principle of Universalization", which holds that
Discourse ethics is a possible grounding forcritical theory.[1] In that context, it argues that immoralsocial ills arise through stymied discourse, wherein certain participants cannot or do not submit their views for rational deliberation.[4]
It is also a possible approach to themanagement of science. That approach is primarily popular in Europe, in part because Europeans preferrule-based social adaption totechnological progress, whereas Americans preferutilitarian approaches.[5]
Habermas's discourse ethics attempts to explain the implications ofcommunicative rationality to moral insight and social norms. It reformulates Kantiandeontological ethics into the analysis of communicative structures.[6] This means that it is an attempt to explain the universal and obligatory nature of morality as a consequence of certain universal obligations associated with successful communication.[7]
It is also acognitivist moral theory, which means it holds that moral norms can be justified like facts.[8] Thus it is explicitly attempting to bridgethe gap between the "is" and the "ought."
However, the entire project is undertaken as arational reconstruction of moral insight. It claims only to reconstruct the implicit normative orientations that guide individuals and it claims to access these through an analysis of communication.[9]
Public discourse ethics consists of conversations about ideas in civic or community contexts marked by diversity of perspectives requiring thoughtful public engagement. This discourse is made up of differing insights that helps to shape the public's engagement with one another.[10] This type of discourse is meant to protect and to promote the public good.
For public discourse ethics to be successful there must be an effective level of civility between people or persons involved (Freud: "Civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock").[11] At the same time, participants must be free to criticize each other's argumentation.[12]
Public discourse ethics allows interlocutors to make ethical or normative demands on each other.[3] The result should be "public accountability," a combination of three basic factors:[citation needed]
In Habermas' theory, normative validity would certainly arise from an ideal public discourse. Habermas maintains that in fact it must also arise from any argumentative procedures in which participants achieve genuine agreement (seeuniversal pragmatics). Thus moral strictures can be derived from everyday practices used to resolve issues concerning the legitimacy of actions and the validity of the norms governing interactions,[citation needed] which Habermas calls principle (D).[13]
From principle (D), it follows that thepresuppositions of argumentation would become important. These presuppositions were the kinds of idealization that individuals had to make in order for communication and argumentation to even begin.[4] For example:
There were also presuppositions unique to discourse:
These are all at the center of Habermas's moral theory.
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(May 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The presuppositions of communication express a universal obligation to maintain impartial judgment in discourse, which constrains all affected to adopt the perspectives of all others in the exchange of reasons. From this Habermas extracts the following principle of universalization (U), which is the condition every valid norm has to fulfill:
(U) All affected can accept the consequences and the side effects that [the norm's] general observance can be anticipated to have for the satisfaction of everyone's interests, and the consequences are preferred to those of known alternative possibilities for regulation. (Habermas, 1991:65)
This can be understood as the deep structure of all acceptable moral norms, and should not be confused with the principle of discourse ethics (D), which presupposes that norms exist that satisfy the conditions specified by (U).
(D) Only those norms can claim to be valid that meet (or could meet) with the approval of all affected in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse.
The implications of (U) and (D) are quite profound. (U) claims to be a rational reconstruction of the impartial moral point of view at the heart of all cognitivist moral theories. According to moral cognitivists (e.g. Kant, Rawls etc.), it is only from such a moral point of view that insight into the actual (quasi-factual) impersonal obligations of ageneral will can be gained, because this perspective relieves decisions from the inaccuracies of personal interests. Of course, Habermas's reconstruction is different because it is intersubjective. That is, Habermas (unlikeKant orRawls) formulates the moral point of view as it arises out of the multiple perspectives of those affected by a norm under consideration. The moral point of view explicated in (U) is not the property of an individual subject but the property of a community of interlocutors, the results of a complex dialogical process of role taking and perspective exchanging. Furthermore, (U) is deduced from a rational reconstruction of the presupposition of communication, which downgrades the strong transcendentalism of Kantian ethics by establishing a foundation in inner-worldly processes of communication.
(D) on the other hand is a principle concerning the manner in which norms conforming to (U) must be justified through discourse. Again, Habermas takes the task of moral reflection out of the isolated individual's head and gives it to intersubjective processes of communication. What (D) proposes is that moral principles must be validated in actual discourse and that those to be affected by a norm must be able to participate in argumentation concerning its validity. No number of thought experiments can replace a communicative exchange with others regarding moral norms that will affect them. Moreover, this general prescription concerning the type of discourse necessary for the justification of moral norms opens the process of moral deliberation to the kind of learning that accompanies a fallibilistic orientation. (U) and (D) are catalysts for a moral learning process, which although fallible is not relative. The flesh and blood insights of participants in communicative exchange are refracted through the universal guidelines explicated from the deep structures of communication and argumentation. This spawns discourses with a rational trajectory, which are grounded in the particular circumstances of those involved but aimed at a universal moral validity.
The practical applications of discourse ethics have taken a significant turn after the publication of Habermas' bookBetween Facts and Norms (1992),[14] where its application to democracy and the legislative process was substantially refined and expanded. Before this book, Habermas had left open the question of the various applications of discourse theory to almost any type of consensus oriented group[15] ranging from highly visible political and governmental groups, such as Parliament in Great Britain and Congressional debate in the United States, and other consensus oriented activities as found in public and private institutions such as those supported on various international websites and Wikipedia.[independent source needed]
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
