UNIT – 3

DISCOURSE ETHICS:

Quest: Write a critical note on Discourse Ethics (Dec.2013, 250 words)          

Quest: What  are the general features of  Habermas  discourse Ethics? (June.2012,  250 words)

Quest: Elucidates the general features of discourse ethics(Dec.2013, 500 words)

Quest: What are the main features of Habermas discourse ethics? (Dec.2014, 150 words)

Quest: What do you understand by ‘Discourse Ethics? Discuss the views of Habermas and Karl-Otto  Apeal. (June.2012, 500 words)

Quest: What is Discourse Ethics ?  How does Habermas address the concern of multiple discourses on Ethics? (Dec.2012, 500 words)

Quest: Illustrate discourse Ethics. (Dec.2011, 250 words)

THE GENERAL FEATURES OF HABERMAS’ DISCOURSE ETHICS:

Ans. German philosopher and sociologist of the tradition of critical theory and pragmatism asserts that philosophy should seek to reveal the significance that can be found in everyday experience. He says that elements of universal significance that can be proved by empirical sciences should be debated and their importance should be asserted.  According to him philosophy should deputize empirical sciences and try to find out the theories based on universal laws.  The three general features of Habermas discourse ethics are as follows:

1    Discourse ethics is not concerned about the good life or prudence but merely with the issue of morality.  The question of morality is something different from the question of prudence because of their basis being universal.  So, discourse ethics justifies the norms that determine the legitimate opportunities as per the needs. It tries to change the understanding of the needs of the participant. The only matter of concern for discourse ethics is institutional justice.

2    Discourse ethics lays down the procedure to be followed while determining the validity of norms.  That’s why it is called procedural ethics.  It does not give any norm for the theory of good or justice but merely the procedure to follow while adjudicating between conflicting norms. Universalizability is the rule of argumentation which belongs to the practical discourse. It helps the moral actor to create general agreement in the situation of crisis of the validity of any norm.

3    The discourse is related to the practical and empirical life not something which is merely hypothesis or assumption.  He says that the validity of discourse is based on the kind of action it engenders. According to him, communicative action is based on the genuine communication in the social world.  This genuine communication leads to social interaction which promotes harmony and freedom in the society. He says that capitalists try to subdue most of the people of the society by falser communication. So, he aimed at a free society which is not the victim of distortions of communication. He says that a free society will create an ideal society”.  According to him this is the ideal speech situation where people could freely exchange their views without any fear of dominance by superiors. Here all partners have equal rights and opportunities without the dominance and deception of others.  Though he admits that this ideal speech situation is merely a probability or possibility. But he asserts the by creating favourable conditions it can be transformed into reality.  His criterion of truth is the consent of all the others in the discussion.

Thus, according to Habermas a true consensus can be created only in the ideal speech situation with the help of the rules of argumentation.

Quest: Elucidates the general features of discourse ethics(Dec.2013, 500 words)

Karl-Otto Apel’s Discourse Ethics:  The philosophy of discourse ethics is based mainly on the philosophy of Kant’s transcendental ethics. His discourse ethics is based on the foundation of fundamental fact of language. According to him the lacuna in the moral theories are due to the ignorance of this linguistics fact.  The introspective or monological use of language and its contradiction with the communal language in which, they all had to philosophize, has lead to all the problems regarding moral philosophy. Resultantly, they all become a sort of personal theory based on perception.

       Realizing the importance of the ‘linguistic turn’ in the history of philosophy, Apel gives prime place in his philosophy to linguistic facts and discourse of which each human being is a member. Apel gives four universal validity claims based on Habermas’ theory, which are as follows:

1.  Whatever is said makes sense or has meaning

2.  Truthfulness of the all assertions is another requirement

3.  The belief of the  speaker in its truth or sincerity

4.  Normative correctness is another important factor.

APEL’S CRITIQUE OF PREVIOUS MORAL THEORIES:

 Quest: Write a critical appreciation of Apel’s Critique of previous moral theories.

Ans. According to Apel, moral philosophy remained unable to give a sound foundation of morality. He holds the view the teleological theory of Aristotle, is of personal or particular level.  It lacks universalistic appeal to humanity in general.  Kant’s categorical imperative, too, is limited to the conventions of his society. Contract and convention theories also failed to satisfy the individuals, mainly in care, their own interest was to behave differently.

       Apel opines that while science has succeeded in grounding on universality, moral philosophy, due to its basis being perception, has turned in to sheer  stupidity .  Due to the globalization of the society, there is pressing need of universal norms to appease the whole world , not to only one or the other particular society or nation.

       The main matter of concern for Apel is this that moral philosophy is based on the individuals pondering. They failed to realize the importance of the language community and discussion and communication.  All the thoughts of moralists are based on communal language.  All our thoughts are in argument form.  Hence the linguistic condition must be of primary importance for any moralist philosopher.  The failure of the moralists to give an universal ground to moral norms is due to their negligence of linguistic condition.

       Thus, to avoid failure, the moralists should take care of the linguistic  conditions, so that they can achieve the goal of universal conditions of morality.  This universal ground will be the basis of all human theoretical and practical activities.

 Quest: What are the general features of Habermas’ discourse  ethics?  How would you relate moral consciousness and discourse ethics? (June-2014, 500 words)

Ans. General Features of Discourse Ethics: To propound accurate moral and political principle is the aim of discourse ethics.  And to accomplish this mission, the procedure to be followed is communication. Through exchange of information and opinion between people this aim can be achieved.  And the conditions to be followed are:

1.  Equal regard for all parties and equal regard to the interests of all participants.

2.  No pressure or constraint should be used on any party

3.  Only rationalistic approach to convince the people should be adopted.

4.  Noting should be accepted without inquiry

5.  Consent of all parties for any agreement will be required.

6.  Every issue will be considered as open for discussion.

Discourse ethics is an attempt to reformulate Kantian deontological ethics.  It is an attempt to implement the universality of Kantian deontological ethics through discussion.  Justification of facts is the basis of the justification of moral norms, according to this cognitivist moral theory.  To give a rationalistic approach to moral insight is the aim of this theory. That’s why it is called ‘argumentation ethics’.

German Philosopher Jurgen Habermas and Karl-otto-Apel are the eminent ethicists who support this theory. 

Moral Consciousness and Discourse Ethics:  The aim of Habermas’ discourse ethics is to find out an ‘ultimate procedure’ through which moral truths, which are universally applicable to every circumstances, can be approved.  For achieving this goal it is necessary to find out the presuppositions inherent in our lives.  It is needed to validate and reflect scientifically and empirically, the abstract concepts of philosophy.

                     Language and communication and its relation with action are the factors of utmost importance in Habermas’ philosophy.  Socio-cognitive tools used by participants depend on the proposed actions their futuristic view among the participants combined effort of all participants is needed to perform this action.  The maturer the participants become, the more complex their conflicts become.  Their socio-cognitive inventory also expands.  As per the moral development, the socio-cognitive inventory evolves.

                     To sum up Habermas’ views on moral consciousness and discourse ethics:

(a)                                 To find out  temporary solutions for moral  issues by establishing  universalistic procedure.

(b)                                The basis of this procedure is the ‘assumptions’ implied in the language of the communicative action. This language has also universalistic form, due to which it is used always and everywhere.

(c)                                 This procedure of deriving the social norms must be based on reciprocal process of both parties.  The natural outcome of this whole process will be the universal principle which will be the basis of impartial judgement.

(d)                                The ground for this development of discourse ethics is the rational interpretation of the social and empirical facts of the issues given by some prudent human person.

(e)                                 In order to reach to the point of convergence the members should try to find out reasons that are acceptable for all.

Q2. Explain Kantian Deontological Ethics.

Questions of the unit:

Quest: What are the general features of Habermas’ discourse ethics?  How would you relate moral consciousness and discourse ethics? (June-2014, 500 words)

Q.1 What are the ideal conditions for commutation in Discourse Ethics?

Ans. General Features of Discourse Ethics: To propound accurate moral and political principle is the aim of discourse ethics.  And to accomplish this mission, the procedure to be followed is communication. Through exchange of information and opinion between people this aim can be achieved.  And the conditions to be followed are:

1.  Equal regard for all parties and equal regard to the interests of all participants.

2.  No pressure or constraint should be used on any party

3.  Only rationalistic approach to convince the people should be adopted.

4.  Noting should be accepted without inquiry

5.  Consent of all parties for any agreement will be required.

6.  Every issue will be considered as open for discussion.

Discourse ethics is an attempt to reformulate Kantian deontological ethics.  It is an attempt to implement the universality of Kantian deontological ethics through discussion.  Justification of facts is the basis of the justification of moral norms, according to this cognitivist moral theory.  To give a rationalistic approach to moral insight is the aim of this theory. That’s why it is called ‘argumentation ethics’.

German Philosopher Jurgen Habermas and Karl-otto-Apel are the eminent ethicists who support this theory. 

Q4. How does Habermas explain ideal Speech Situation?

Ans. The Rules of Argumentation:

Q5.  Describe Habermas’ views on moral consciousness and discourse ethics.

Ans. Moral Consciousness and Discourse Ethics:  The aim of Habermas’ discourse ethics is to find out an ‘ultimate procedure’ through which moral truths, which are universally applicable to every circumstances, can be approved.  For achieving this goal it is necessary to find out the presuppositions inherent in our lives.  It is needed to validate and reflect scientifically and empirically, the abstract concepts of philosophy.

                     Language and communication and its relation with action are the factors of utmost importance in Habermas’ philosophy.  Socio-cognitive tools used by participants depend on the proposed actions their futuristic view among the participants combined effort of all participants is needed to perform this action.  The maturer the participants become, the more complex their conflicts become.  Their socio-cognitive inventory also expands.  As per the moral development, the socio-cognitive inventory evolves.

                     To sum up Habermas’ views on moral consciousness and discourse ethics:

(a)                                 To find out  temporary solutions for moral  issues by establishing  universalistic procedure.

(b)                                The basis of this procedure is the ‘assumptions’ implied in the language of the communicative action. This language has also universalistic form, due to which it is used always and everywhere.

(c)                                 This procedure of deriving the social norms must be based on reciprocal process of both parties.  The natural outcome of this whole process will be the universal principle which will be the basis of impartial judgement.

(d)                                The ground for this development of discourse ethics is the rational interpretation of the social and empirical facts of the issues given by some prudent human person.

(e)                                 In order to reach to the point of convergence the members should try to find out reasons that are acceptable for all.