Subject: Re: [HAB:] Moraltiy and Ethics in Hab and Fouc
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 08:08:14 +0000


Gary,

1) Thanks for the reference [The Ethical]. I have just borrowed it from the 
library and would read the two essays you mention later in the evening.

2) On the general comparison of morality and ethics in Foucault and Habermas 
one should not be misled by the terminological differences and the 
differences in specific purposes.

3) When Foucault deals with the issue of morality he is specifically 
concerned with two things. On the one hand he is concerned with analysing 
how certain types of moralities function as integral parts of the strategies 
of power and domination. On the other hand in his later works he has been 
concerned with outlining the ‘vision’ of morality which is not implicated in 
such a strategy (Foucault called it ethics as opposed to morality). But in 
both cases Foucault’s concerns was with ‘personal ethics’ but not in the 
Habermasian sense.

4) On the other hand Habermas’ main concern in his theory of morality is to 
develop a normative conception of social relation based on the idea of 
autonomy derived from the Kantian and Enlightenment tradition. I do not 
think this is any way against Foucault’s project or his normative ideals of 
social relations.


5) Foucault’s main objection to Habermas would be that his assessment of the 
possibility of freedom is too optimistic and that is not because his 
normative ideals are flawed but because the analysis of situation (which is 
not the mainstay of Habermas’ work anyway) is too rosy.

6) I do not understand your following comments [This isn't surprising, as 
Habermas would gladly confine the ethical to an analytic of self-formation 
while insisting
that the aporias of justice require a morality that can't be translated into 
the ethical]. In what sense you say that morality is not translatable to 
ethics? Is not both morality and ethical based on the same ‘idea’ of 
autonomy? [I think here you might be confusing Habermas’ usage of ethical 
with Foucault’s which are not the same. The self formation Foucault talks 
about is not ethical in Habermas’ sense. Habermas’ conception of ethical is 
more Hegelian.].  Any way if we look at Habermas Rawls debate, the main 
objection of Habermas’ against Rawls is that he considers ‘autonomy’ as 
‘optional’ value on the ethical level which would suggest that he does 
consider ‘morality’ as ‘translatable’ to ethics.

7) So when you say that [“So, the challenge to the Foucauldian is to show an 
    appropriate appreciation of "positive" morality (beyond critique of, 
say, bio power) suitable to a theory of justice. ]. The answer is that 
Foucault’s project of ethics is part of this project even if not the whole 
project. One should remember that for Foucault self formation cannot be 
thought of without presupposing the whole web of relations and their 
resconstitution. Thus autonomous self formation does require reconstitution 
of all relations. Though for Foucault the project of self formation cannot 
be postponed till the reconstitution of all relations.

8) As to your last reference to Daniel Dennett Foucault would say Freedom is 
practice and must be exercised. It does not evolve it must be ‘achieved’. 
And I hope Habermas would concur. Anti positivism and anti behaviourism and 
anti scienticism is common to both Foucault and Habermas.

Regards
ali

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger



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