Discourse ethics

 

In Kantian or Rawlsian ethics the moral judgment is made by a “ monologue ”. However, in reality we usually have dialogue of disagreed parties who need to reach an agreement.

 

A rule of action or choice is justified, only if all those affected by the rule or choice could accept it in a reasonable discourse.

 

Presuppositions for a reasonable discourse:

• Everyone use the same linguistic expressions

• No relevant argument is suppressed or excluded by the participants

• No force except that of the better argument is exerted

• Everyone is motivated only by a concern for the better argument

• Everyone would agree to the universal validity of the claim thematized

 

Jürgen Habermas (1929 -)

• Everyone is entitled to participate and to introduce new topics or express attitudes needs or desires

• No validity claim is exempt in principle from critical evaluation

• etc.

 

Other Approaches

Postmodern Ethics

 

 

“Modernism” is a scientific, rational approach to explanation. “Postmodernism” believes that this is too abstract and reductionist. The world is much more complex.

 

 

Z. Bauman (1993):

• Rational approaches to morality are dangerous, because they deny

real source of morality, which is based on emotional “moral impulse”

towards others.

• There are no universal norms, but many local ethical truths that are

based on inner feelings of the participants.

• It is impossible to teach business ethics on the basis of abstract

argumentation but only with personal example.

 

How should we understand this?

 

 

2.17