1991•InquiryRequires access

Discourse and the moral point of view: Deriving a dialogical principle of universalization∗

William R. Rehg

Open publisher page 233 citations

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 233 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available 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.

Key concepts: Universalization, Discourse ethics, Epistemology, Argumentation theory, Dialogical self, Explication, Argument (complex analysis), Sociology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Discourse and the moral point of view: Deriving a dialogical principle of universalization∗ — Research Paper | ScholarLens