Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 19:09:16 +0100
Subject: HAB: The ethic of discussion and the problem of time


Hello,
  I've a little problem with Habermas's ethic of discussion. (first
excuse me for my awful english).
  If I understand Habermas well, he thinks he can found the moral by
reason by showing that a discussion, which is near of an ideal model of
discussion, will lead to reasonable conclusions. as a consequence, an
"almost ideal" discussion concerning action should lead to rules or
norms founded by reason. 
  But my question is : "How do we know that such discussions would lead
to any conclusion at all"?
  One could answer that we experiment such agreements everyday (people
whose purposes are different and who, after a discussion, agree)
  But an ideal model of discussion has to fulfil some conditions : (the
member of the discussion must be honest, he has to think that the aim of
the discussion is truth...). But I think that there is another condition
which Habermas doesn't speak of : the discussion musn't be limited by
time!
  A member of a discussion musn't be limited by time, and he musn't be
forced to find a solution to the discord, if he wants the solution of
the discussion to be reasonable. (Imagine mathematicians discussing
Fermat's theorem and forced to find a solution before an hour!)
  The problem is that practical discussions concerning "what to do?" are
always limited by time, and the members of the discussion are always
forced to find a solution to the discord.
  A theorical problem can be discussed during centuries (Fermat's
theorem for example), but a practical one must be solved quickly. We
can't go on talking forever, at a certain point, we must stop talking
and act. Imagine two men starving in a boat, with only one bread to
share. They are forced to find a compromise (not a consensus) even if
they don't think that the arrangement is reasonable : if they had the
possibility, they could go on discussing ad vitam aeternam, without
finding a solution at all!
  So that a practical discussion is always very far from the ideal model
of discussion; the solutions to practical dilemmas are found only
because the discussions are limited by time and, as a consequence, they
aren't reasonable.
  The ethic of discussion leads only to the best compromises and and not
to consensus. It is just a picture of the strength-relations between the
members of the discussion (a compromise can exist only if it is more
worthwile than fighting).
  As a conclusion, I think that the ethic of discussion can't found the
moral by reason. There's no real difference between it and a strategical
action, UNLESS there is a primitive instinctive or cultural need and
knowledge of justice, fairness, good...

  I'd be happy to have your reactions to that (avices, critics...)
                               Thank you


     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---