File spoon-archives/habermas.archive/habermas_2000/habermas.0011, message 42

Subject: Re: HAB: How do we decide to agree?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:16:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 05:54:01 -0600 (Central Standard Time) Stephen Chilton 
<> wrote:

> How does an affected actor decide whether s/he should agree to a proposed 

Through the force of the best argument, which it is assumed we must identify 
because it coincides with the motivation for having the conversation to begin 
with. I've always found this compelling but unrealistic. Even went confronted 
with a great argument, I'm never quite sure what to do - excellent arguments 
rarely coincide with my interests... but, "they can because they must" as a 
Kantian might say...

> Obviously s/he cannot look to other actors' agreement, because the whole 
point of discourse ethics is to give everyone a voice, and in any case, that 
simply pushes the question back one step to asking how those others decided 
they should agree.

Isn't this the entire idea of autonomy? We have to reason it for ourselves and 
let those reasons become our guidance (incentive?) for agreement. Habermas is 
quite Kantian on this point, is he not?

autonomy and solidarity,

     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005