Date: 	Mon, 2 Mar 1998 20:40:35 -0500
Subject: Re: HAB: The ethic of discussion and the problem of time


On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:09:16 -0500  Reginald CHEVILLON 
wrote:

> Hello

Hi.

>   ... But my question is : "How do we know that such 
discussions would lead to any conclusion at all"?

Habermas seems implicitly aware of this problem.  On pg. 205 
of the MCCA he writes "Noncontextual definitions of a moral 
principle, I admit, have not been satisfactory up to now.  
Negative versions of the moral principle seem to be a step in 
the right direction.  They heed the prohibition of graven 
images, refrain from positive depiction, and as in the case of 
discourse ethics, refer negatively to the damaged life instead 
of pointing affirmatively to the good life."

>   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...

Habermas does argue this in his anthropological work.  See 
Communicative Action and the Evolution of Society or see pg. 
199 of MCCA - "In anthropological terms, morality is a safety 
device compensating for a vulnerability built into the 
sociocultural form of life...."  I think it could be argued that 
Habermas's model DEPENDS on a specific understanding or 
interpretation of what it means to be human.  His work on 
reason and morality stands (and/or falls) squarely on the 
shoulders of this anthropological reading.  For Habermas 
human beings are essentially rational and essentially moral... 
with all of the problems that tag along with essentialist 
readings....

ken, guess what i've been reading lately....




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