Discourse and the moral point of view: Deriving a dialogical principle of universalization∗
William R. Rehg
Abstract
William R. Rehg
Abstract
Central to the discourse ethics advanced by Jürgen Habermas is a principle of universalization (U) amounting to a dialogical equivalent of Kant's Categorical Imperative. Habermas has proposed that ‘U’ follows by material implication from two premises: (1) what it means to discuss whether a moral norm ought to be . adopted and (2) what those involved in argumentation must suppose of themselves if they are to consider a consensus they reach as rationally motivated. To date, no satisfactory derivation of ‘U’ from these two premises has been presented. Thus the present study attempts to show how one can, without begging the question, arrive at ‘U’ by assuming a suitable explication of these two premises, supplemented with a fairly innocuous assumption about the context of discourse. If the argument is sound, then ‘U’ brings both deontological and consequentialist intuitions together with a notion of solidarity that requires an intersubjective account of insight.
OpenAlex reports 233 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Central to the discourse ethics advanced by Jürgen Habermas is a principle of universalization (U) amounting to a dialogical equivalent of Kant's Categorical Imperative. Habermas has proposed that ‘U’ follows by material implication from two premises: (1) what it means to discuss whether a moral norm ought to be . adopted and (2) what those involved in argumentation must suppose of themselves if they are to consider a consensus they reach as rationally motivated. To date, no satisfactory derivation of ‘U’ from these two premises has been presented. Thus the present study attempts to show how one can, without begging the question, arrive at ‘U’ by assuming a suitable explication of these two premises, supplemented with a fairly innocuous assumption about the context of discourse. If the argument is sound, then ‘U’ brings both deontological and consequentialist intuitions together with a notion of solidarity that requires an intersubjective account of insight.
Key concepts: Universalization, Discourse ethics, Epistemology, Argumentation theory, Dialogical self, Explication, Argument (complex analysis), Sociology