Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action

Habermas’
Theory of Communicative Action.
Resume by Tabea Hirzel

1. Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action

2. Theory Rational Arguments: Moral arguments based on rationality (vs. Horkheimer)  p.134, 172 Justification and Application: Tension between why be morality (Aristotle) and how be moral(Kant)  p. 128 Impartiality Condition: Universal binding norms derived from objective truth which is known through discourse and application  p. 124, 137, 158-9, 164-5 Participant-Observer: Discourse, the process for finding understanding between pluralistic life forms  p. 60, 142, 145, 156, 163, 166 © 2010 Tabea Hirzel

3. Rational Arguments Kant’s categorical imperative claims impartiality by universalization Habermas adds appropiatness to this claim. Horkheimer’s «…impossibility of deriving from reason any fundamental argument against murder.» (p. 134) How: If we know truth we know the right action, we know how to be moral. Why: If we want to be rational we must be moral. Otherwise we commite a performative contradiction. © 2010 Tabea Hirzel

4. Justification & Application Aristotle: Why be moral?  justification of truth Kant: What ought to do?  truth test Pragmatic: Purposive, the useful, rational, a relative ought Kant’s conditional imperative Ethic: Idealistic, the good, value decision, reflective, appropiative, self-understanding, identity of substance Kant’s unconditional imperative, Aristotles highest good Moral: Binding, the right, true, just, Kant’s categorical imperative If identity is interrelated, intersubjective  ethics = moral If universality needs appropiatness  moral = pragmatic Categories of action: Vs. Horkheimer: « ‘With God dies eternal truth’ … everything to do with morality derives from theology.» (p. 137) Habermas: Justice and application are complementary (p. 154) © 2010 Tabea Hirzel

5. Impartiality Condition Habermas: Discourse in ideal communication (. 145) as context transcending truth-claim decides on the right answer Horkheimer’: «The individual will … becomes good when, through compassion, it recognizes its true identity with all other things. (p. 142) Moral argument on the «yes» or «no» of a statement requires Impartiality by universalization, i.e. abstraction from (a) motives, (b) particular situation, (c) concrete context (p. 66) Impartiality by application, i.e. participation of the infinite communicative commu, translating universal norms in concrete contexts (speech acts) (p. 60, 124) Impartiality in process, i.e. use of arguments (p 156-7) in collective decision to achieve conviction (. 158) Justice is compassion/solidarity and conscience (p. 135)  condition for identity (p. 154) and through communicative action it is integrative (p. 166) © 2010 Tabea Hirzel

6. Discoursive Loop 1. Appeal 2. Question 3. Crisis 4. Consensus 5. Translation 6. Meaning 7. Response 8. Understanding © 2010 Tabea Hirzel

7. Resume Deontological (p. 152): Theological/Consquentialist: you shall not murder (right) – in order to live and avoid punishmente (from God) Deontologict: you shall not murder (right) – because it is not good for you Absolutist deontologist: you shall not kill (action) – because you are responsible for any bad consequence of your action Cognitive (p. 153) Formalistic (p. 156), formal pragmatism (p. 154) Universalistic (p. 145): ideal discourse, impartiality © 2010 Tabea Hirzel