The Advancement of Altruism as a Criterion of Moral Validity

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 348-365
Author(s):  
Belén Pueyo-Ibáñez

Jürgen Habermas’s discourse ethics is a method of intersubjective argumentation conceived to test the validity of moral norms on the basis of their universalizability. As some scholars have argued, Habermas’s proposal is problematic in that the process of argumentation is always affected by the circumstances of inequality and unfairness that pervade communal life and, therefore, it cannot be as inclusive and egalitarian as it needs to be in order to function effectively. In this paper, I argue that the solutions proposed by these scholars, namely, the improvement of social conditions and the pluralization of the process of argumentation, cannot by themselves resolve the practical limitation Habermas’s method presents. As an alternative, I adopt Philip Kitcher’s approach to ethics according to which the establishment of moral norms is oriented not to the resolution of disagreements but to the restitution of healthy relationships among individuals. On the basis of this alternative conception, I propose the addition to Habermas’s principle of universalization of a supplemental criterion of moral justification—one that makes the validity of norms dependent upon their potential to foster altruism.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Michael Hemmingsen

<p>This paper sets out an approach – post-modern cosmopolitanism – that seeks to allow moral conversation and moral justification between groups and individuals who do not share any substantive values. It does this without denying the plurality of value systems (universalism) and without allowing groups to retreat behind inviolable walls of ethical self-containment (relativism). The approach relies on many aspects of Jurgen Habermas’s discourse ethics, but it takes discourse ethics in a new direction, leading to a unique approach. I start the paper by showing the problems with the current dominant alternatives – universalism and relativism – both in terms of their lack of internal consistency and in terms of their inability to mitigate and resolve conflict in practice. I then introduce some of the important concepts that form the basis of the post-modern cosmopolitan approach: discourse ethics, communicative reason, the principles of discourse, and the idea of fundamental goals. Following this I discuss the nature of ‘reasons,’ in order to make sense of the claim of discourse ethics that we should engage with each other via an ‘exchange of reasons,’ and also to outline some of the key distinctions necessary for understanding the praxis of post-modern cosmopolitanism, the ‘cosmopolitan conversation’. Finally I examine some of the deficiencies in Habermas’s discourse ethics, and show how post-modern cosmopolitanism can overcome them. I conclude by outlining the nature of the ‘cosmopolitan conversation,’ and gesture at how we might begin to apply post-modern cosmopolitanism in real-world situations.</p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Michael Hemmingsen

<p>This paper sets out an approach – post-modern cosmopolitanism – that seeks to allow moral conversation and moral justification between groups and individuals who do not share any substantive values. It does this without denying the plurality of value systems (universalism) and without allowing groups to retreat behind inviolable walls of ethical self-containment (relativism). The approach relies on many aspects of Jurgen Habermas’s discourse ethics, but it takes discourse ethics in a new direction, leading to a unique approach. I start the paper by showing the problems with the current dominant alternatives – universalism and relativism – both in terms of their lack of internal consistency and in terms of their inability to mitigate and resolve conflict in practice. I then introduce some of the important concepts that form the basis of the post-modern cosmopolitan approach: discourse ethics, communicative reason, the principles of discourse, and the idea of fundamental goals. Following this I discuss the nature of ‘reasons,’ in order to make sense of the claim of discourse ethics that we should engage with each other via an ‘exchange of reasons,’ and also to outline some of the key distinctions necessary for understanding the praxis of post-modern cosmopolitanism, the ‘cosmopolitan conversation’. Finally I examine some of the deficiencies in Habermas’s discourse ethics, and show how post-modern cosmopolitanism can overcome them. I conclude by outlining the nature of the ‘cosmopolitan conversation,’ and gesture at how we might begin to apply post-modern cosmopolitanism in real-world situations.</p>


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 850-856
Author(s):  
Gobinda Bhattacharjee ◽  

In this present work, I have made an attempt to discuss the concept of discourse ethics with its basic characteristics, and finally the main problems concerning Habermasian discourse theory of morality. Discourse ethics is an approach to ethics that is founded upon rules of dialogue, and which encourages participants to approach an ethical dilemma with both pure rational reason and experience firmly in hand. Habermasian discourse ethics is widely known as deliberative democratic theory often praised for its ideals. The concept of communicative action plays a central role in the development of Habermas discourse morality. It is a theory of morality, which claims that moral norms concerning justice can be tested rationally in an argumentative dialogue the ideal precondition is that dialogue should be free from domination. With its various characteristics, some main problems concerning Habermasian Discourse ethics is also discussed in this paper.


2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (04) ◽  
pp. 489-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Georg Scherer

ABSTRACT: I explore the role of hypernorms in the Integrative Social Contracts Theory (ISCT) of Thomas Donaldson and Thomas W. Dunfee, who suggested that hypernorms are a necessary condition for the rejection of cultural relativism and justification of moral norms within and across social communities. Hypernorms are, thus, a significant part of a conception of international business ethics. I highlight philosophical problems that emerge in attempts to identify and justify hypernorms. These problems have not been sufficiently addressed in the ISCT; therefore, I will discuss the discourse–ethical contributions of contemporary German philosophers toward resolving the justification problem with regards to universal norms. Discourse ethics builds on the linguistic and the pragmatic turns in philosophy and develops procedural rules for the assessment of norms. I explore variants of discourse ethics with regards to their concept of justification and discuss the implications of discourse ethical procedures for the justification of norms and actions.


2007 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 411-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Robertson ◽  
Garry Walter

Objective: The aim of this paper is to consider two recent approaches to moral philosophy – postmodernism and discourse ethics – and evaluate their potential contribution to psychiatric ethics. Conclusion: Postmodern ethics arose from the perceived moral failures of the grand theories of ethics, as evident in the horrors of the twentieth century. As a result, such approaches to ethics emphasize the individual's moral situation in a particular context, such as the doctor–patient relationship. Postmodern approaches have some relevance to current and future psychiatric practice. Discourse ethics sees ethical norms generated by a process of a discourse procedure, in which all members of a discourse are able to express their views. Discourse ethics allows the generation of moral ‘norms’, which are universal in as far as all those affected by them can accept their consequences. Applied to professional ethics, psychiatrists are members of a large group engaged in a discourse with diverse parts of society, yet exist within small moral communities in which micro-discourses are compatible with different individual ethical positions.


Author(s):  
Alex Johnson ◽  
Amanda Hitchins

Abstract This article summarizes a series of trips sponsored by People to People, a professional exchange program. The trips described in this report were led by the first author of this article and include trips to South Africa, Russia, Vietnam and Cambodia, and Israel. Each of these trips included delegations of 25 to 50 speech-language pathologists and audiologists who participated in professional visits to learn of the health, education, and social conditions in each country. Additionally, opportunities to meet with communication disorders professionals, students, and persons with speech, language, or hearing disabilities were included. People to People, partnered with the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), provides a meaningful and interesting way to learn and travel with colleagues.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document