Negotiating Ethics as a Two Level Debate :: Philosophy Philosophical Papers

Negotiating Ethics as a Two Level Debate ABSTRACT: As a form of moral debate, discourse ethic, according to Habermas, is based on regulated discussion. Participating moral agents share a common understanding in the ideal speech situation. Following procedures they try to reach consensus on questions of justice and rights. Critics of discourse ethic point to the bias of Western assumptions regarding agents and methods, the danger of elitism, and the optimism and the pacifism that run through the theory. After modification, Habermas distinguishes two types of discourse: the discourse of justification and the discourse of application. The second is inferior to the first. In the second, there is room for negotiating. There is another way of looking at negotiation, one that takes negotiating seriously as an important category of human behavior. This category shows an interesting overlap with moral behavior. Distinguishing four concepts of negotiating and using reciprocity and trust as the moral minimum, Negotiating Ethics is pre sented as a two level moral debate, close to Habermas but morally different in essential aspects. I. Discourse Ethics: Habermas Habermas establishes his moral theory by externalizing the Kantian dialogue interieur. The externalization takes place in three steps. The first step is to transfer the mental deliberation of the Kantian individual into an interactive public deliberation of all those concerned with the moral topic in question. The second step is to conflate rationality with reason. Rationality no longer is a deduction from Reason, but instead it is an underpinning of reasonableness. In discourse ethic rationality means giving good reasons for choices of reasonableness. The third step is to view justice, not according to the categorical imperative, but by concentrating on the following of procedures. Claims concerning the content of moral deliberation must be avoided. What results is an elaborated, interactive Kantianism, concentrating on procedures but still claiming universalism. Continuing the line of critical theory, Habermas avoids the classical standards of Nature, God and Reason and instead presents the ideal speech situation: an attempt to interpret rational consensus procedurally, with no regard for the content. The ideal speech situation serves to summarize the rules to be followed in moral argumentation: symmetry and reciprocity. Symmetry refers to speech acts: each participant must have an equal chance to initiate and to continue communication, and to make assertions, give explanations, and challenge justifications. Reciprocity refers to action contexts: participants must have an equal chance to express their wishes, feelings and intentions, and speakers must act as if each of them has the same capacity to order, to promise and to be accountable. Negotiating Ethics as a Two Level Debate :: Philosophy Philosophical Papers Negotiating Ethics as a Two Level Debate ABSTRACT: As a form of moral debate, discourse ethic, according to Habermas, is based on regulated discussion. Participating moral agents share a common understanding in the ideal speech situation. Following procedures they try to reach consensus on questions of justice and rights. Critics of discourse ethic point to the bias of Western assumptions regarding agents and methods, the danger of elitism, and the optimism and the pacifism that run through the theory. After modification, Habermas distinguishes two types of discourse: the discourse of justification and the discourse of application. The second is inferior to the first. In the second, there is room for negotiating. There is another way of looking at negotiation, one that takes negotiating seriously as an important category of human behavior. This category shows an interesting overlap with moral behavior. Distinguishing four concepts of negotiating and using reciprocity and trust as the moral minimum, Negotiating Ethics is pre sented as a two level moral debate, close to Habermas but morally different in essential aspects. I. Discourse Ethics: Habermas Habermas establishes his moral theory by externalizing the Kantian dialogue interieur. The externalization takes place in three steps. The first step is to transfer the mental deliberation of the Kantian individual into an interactive public deliberation of all those concerned with the moral topic in question. The second step is to conflate rationality with reason. Rationality no longer is a deduction from Reason, but instead it is an underpinning of reasonableness. In discourse ethic rationality means giving good reasons for choices of reasonableness. The third step is to view justice, not according to the categorical imperative, but by concentrating on the following of procedures. Claims concerning the content of moral deliberation must be avoided. What results is an elaborated, interactive Kantianism, concentrating on procedures but still claiming universalism. Continuing the line of critical theory, Habermas avoids the classical standards of Nature, God and Reason and instead presents the ideal speech situation: an attempt to interpret rational consensus procedurally, with no regard for the content. The ideal speech situation serves to summarize the rules to be followed in moral argumentation: symmetry and reciprocity. Symmetry refers to speech acts: each participant must have an equal chance to initiate and to continue communication, and to make assertions, give explanations, and challenge justifications. Reciprocity refers to action contexts: participants must have an equal chance to express their wishes, feelings and intentions, and speakers must act as if each of them has the same capacity to order, to promise and to be accountable.