Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 00:42:58 EDT
Subject: Re: HAB: (U) and (D)


In a message dated 4/12/99 3:01:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
jvpeters-AT-midway.uchicago.edu writes:

> I think Habermas's criticism of
>  Hobbesian contractualists' attempts to solve the problem of social order
>  bears out this view.  Too simply put, agreements are always parasitic on
>  some (perhaps clandestine) antecedent solidarity (trust) among contracting
>  parties, who could never reach agreement simply on the premises of
>  self-interest and instrumental rationality.

This seems to be the crux of your argument.  Whatever you want to call it, 
cultural background, shared values, or antecedent solidarity, there seems to 
be some prerequisite for accepting that another has a communicative attitude 
before the events of the coordination of action.  But, what seems to me to be 
entirely an empirical issue, seems to you to be some dispositional asset.  I 
have to challenge you on this.  I simply do not agree.  That people have 
reasons for acting does not imply, imho, that they are sharing any particular 
culture or value.  It seems like you have completely negated any critical 
rationality or moral autonomy in your theoretical attitude.

Fred Welfare


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