DISCOURSE ETHICS OF JURGEN HABERMAS: A CRITIQUE

The article considers discourse ethics proposed by Jurgen Habermas, analyzes its logical premises, key points, advantages and disadvantages. The following are distinguished as logical premises: 1) the impossibility to derive the descriptive from the prescriptive, and therefore the inevitable dogmatism of ethical norms; 2) the inability to predict reliably what kind of dogmas will be accepted by other people as convincing; 3) the necessity to discuss moral dogmas in order to clarify them, as well as to test their persuasiveness for oneself and for other people; 4) an understanding of justice as a principle that could be approved by everyone. The virtue of discourse ethics is that it finds a thoughtful, reasoned and elegant way out of post-modern relativism. One of the consequences of this is the possibility to solve the pressing issue of the connection of the classical liberal ideals of freedom and equality with the ideal of brotherhood and solidarity with the help of discourse ethics. The author of the article divides the critique of the ethics of discourse into two directions. The first line of criticism is that the ethics of discourse does not save us from ethical relativism completely. This includes arguments according to which: 1) discourse may lead us to the absence of any universal persuasive rules at all; 2) the rules of discourse according to Habermas are historically relative; 3) it is not exactly clear who will determine the end and the result of discourse, and therefore the practical applicability of the corresponding ethical theory is doubtful. The second line of criticism is related to the fact that Habermas overestimates the role of communication and discourse: 1) the inability to come to an agreement on moral values leads to the fact that the communicative interpretation of justice erases the boundaries between justice and a temporary compromise; 2) Habermas underestimates possibilities and significance of the internal discourse of an individual; 3) the real possibility of opening a discourse for everyone is doubtful. As a result, the author concludes that the flaws in discourse ethics force one to give the principle of discourse a subordinate character compared to the principle of universalization.