The Metaethics of Critical Theories

  • Titus Stahl
Part of the Political Philosophy and Public Purpose book series (POPHPUPU)


Critical theories, from their beginning in Marx’s philosophy to the Frankfurt School with its different generations, have always been characterized by a certain ambivalence toward moral questions. They often conceive themselves as an alternative to traditional moral philosophy, which is criticized both for separating context-free normative justification and empirical descriptions too strictly and for its seeming commitment to moral and normative standards developed independently from historical and social contingency. The different generations of critical theory have all attempted to develop a theory of normative judgment which is appropriately critical but which nevertheless does not require any commitment to naive moral naturalism or context-free realism. In the chapter, the author traces this through the different stages of the development of critical theories, and argues that at least some of the answers we can find in this tradition do not fit into the usual division between realist and antirealist theories in contemporary metaethics.


Moral Judgment Moral Belief Moral Claim Moral Fact Normative Judgment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adorno, Theodor. 1973. Negative dialectics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2002. Problems of moral philosophy, ed. Thomas Schröder. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 2006. Minima moralia: Reflections from damaged life: Reflections on a damaged life. Trans. E.F.N. Jephcott. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  4. Bernstein, J.M. 2001. Adorno: Disenchantment and ethics. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackburn, Simon. 1984. Spreading the word. Groundings in the philosophy of language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1999. Is objective moral justification possible on a quasi-realist foundation? Inquiry 42(2): 213–227. doi: 10.1080/002017499321552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandom, Robert B. 2000. Facts, norms, and normative facts: A reply to Habermas. European Journal of Philosophy 8(3): 356–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooke, Maeve. 1997. Language and reason: A study of Habermas’s pragmatics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Finlayson, James Gordon. 2005. Habermas’s moral cognitivism and the Frege-Geach challenge. European Journal of Philosophy 13(3): 319–344. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0378.2005.00232.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. 2009. Morality and critical theory: On the normative problem of Frankfurt School social criticism. Telos 2009(146): 7–41. doi: 10.3817/0309146007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisk, Milton. 1980. Ethics and society: A marxist interpretation of value. Brighton: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  12. Freyenhagen, Fabian. 2013. Adorno’s practical philosophy: Living less wrongly. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 1988. On the logic of the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1990. Discourse ethics: Notes on a program of philosophical justification. In Moral consciousness and communicative action, 43–115. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Honneth, Axel. 1992. Integrity and disrespect: Principles of a conception of morality based on the theory of recognition. Political Theory 20(2): 187–201. doi: 10.1177/0090591792020002001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 1993. The critique of power: Reflective stages in a critical social theory. Trans. Kenneth Baynes. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 1995. The struggle for recognition. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2002a. Between hermeneutics and hegelianism. McDowell and the challenge of moral realism. In Reading McDowell: On “mind and world”, ed. Nicholas H. Smith, 246–265. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2002b. Grounding recognition: A rejoinder to critical questions. Inquiry 45(December): 499–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 2003. Redistribution as recognition: A response to Nancy Fraser. In Redistribution or recognition?: A political-philosophical exchange, ed. Nancy Fraser, and Axel Honneth, 110–197. London/New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2007a. Moral consciousness and class domination: Some problems in the analysis of hidden morality. In Disrespect. The normative foundations of critical theory, 80–95. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2007b. Recognition as ideology. In Recognition and power. Axel Honneth and the tradition of critical social theory, ed. Bert van den Brink, and David Owen, 323–348. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ———. 2014. The normativity of ethical life. Trans. Felix Koch. Philosophy & Social Criticism 40(8): 817–826. doi: 10.1177/0191453714541538.
  25. Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor Adorno. 2002. Dialectic of enlightenment, ed. Gunzelin Schmid Noerr. Trans. Edmund Jephcott, 1st edn. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jaeggi, Rahel. 2005. ‘No individual can resist’: Minima moralia as critique of forms of life. Constellations 12(1): 65–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1351-0487.2005.00403.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lukes, Steven. 1985. Marxism and morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mackie, J.L. 1990. Ethics: Inventing right and wrong, Penguin philosophy. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  29. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1976a. The communist manifesto. In Collected works/vol. 6, Marx and Engels 1845–48, 477–519. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 1976b. The German ideology. In Collected works/vol. 5, Marx and Engels: 1845–47, 19–539. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. McDowell, John. 1998. Projection and truth in ethics. In Mind, value and reality, 151–166. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, Richard W. 1984. Analyzing Marx morality, power and history. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nielsen, Kai. 1989. Marxism and the moral point of view: Morality, ideology, and historical materialism. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  34. O’Connor, Brian. 2004. Adorno’s negative dialectic: Philosophy and the possibility of critical rationality. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 2013. Adorno. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Peffer, R.G. 1990. Marxism, morality, and social justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rehg, William. 2011. Discourse ethics. In Jürgen Habermas: Key concepts, ed. Barbara Fultner, 115–139. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
  38. Rosen, Michael. 2000. The marxist critique of morality and the theory of ideology. In Morality, reflection, and ideology, ed. Edward Harcourt, 21–43. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Shaw, William H. 1981. Marxism and moral objectivity. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7(Supplementary Volume): 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stahl, Titus. forthcoming. Immanent critique and particular moral experience. Critical Horizons.Google Scholar
  41. ———. 2013a. Habermas and the project of immanent critique. Constellations 20(4). doi: 10.1111/1467-8675.12057.
  42. ———. 2013b. Ideologiekritik als Kritik sozialer Praktiken. Eine expressivistische Rekonstruktion der Kritik falschen Bewusstseins. In Nach Marx, ed. Rahel Jaeggi, and Daniel Loick, 228–254. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  43. Taylor, Charles. 1985. Interpretation and the sciences of man. In Philosophy and the human sciences. philosophical papers 2, 15–57. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wood, Allen W.C. 1981. Karl Marx. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Titus Stahl
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations