Abstract
Discourse ethics (DE) articulates a perspective on morality based on communicative rationality. It holds it to be possible to justify universal moral norms on the basis of rational argumentation in practical discourse, if and only if a set of formal criteria are met. A central criterion is that a norm is accepted by all participants in discourse without any form of coercion. In bioethics, above all, its focus on inclusion, participation and democracy is appreciated, as well as the fact that it allows for truthfinding in pluralistic settings. The fact that DE is idealistic with regard to the possibility to attain impartial and universal norms on the basis of an “ideal speech situation” is both seen as a strength, as it is argued to set an inspiring standard for present-day bioethical enquiry, and as a weakness, because its high-demanding criteria are untenable in practice. Other aspects that are mentioned as weak points of DE are its proceduralism, its cognitivism, its universalism, and the fact that concrete guidelines for deliberation are not provided. Nevertheless, DE is relevant for bioethics, as it focuses on the intersubjective nature of moral understanding and provides a standard for organizing practices of moral reasoning in a democratic way.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Apel, K.-O. (1980). Towards a transformation of philosophy (trans: Adey, G., & Frisby, D.). London: Routledge/Kegan Paul.
Baur, V. E., & Abma, T. A. (2011). Resident councils between lifeworld and system: Is there room for communicative action? Journal of Aging Studies, 25, 390–396.
Benhabib, S., & Dallmayr, F. (Eds.). (1990). The communicative ethics controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cooke, E. (2003). On the possibility of a pragmatic discourse bioethics: Putnam, Habermas, and the normative logic of bioethical inquiry. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 28, 635–653.
Fardella, J. A. (2008). The recovery model: Discourse ethics and the retrieval of the self. Journal of Medical Humanities, 29, 111–126.
Gunson, D. (2012). What is the Habermasian perspective in bioethics? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 21(2), 188–199.
Habermas, J. (1990). Discourse ethics: Notes on a program of philosophical justification. In Moral consciousness and communicative action (pp. 43–115). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1998). Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1973). Wahrheitstheorien. In H. Fahrenbach (Ed.), Wirklichkeit und Reflection. Festschrift für Walter Schulz (pp. 211–263). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Molewijk, B., Kleinlugtenbelt, D., & Widdershoven, G. (2011). The role of emotions in moral case deliberation. Theory, practice, and methodology. Bioethics, 25(7), 383–393.
Molewijk, B., Abma, T. A., Stolper, M., & Widdershoven, G. (2008). Teaching ethics in the clinic. The theory and practice of moral case deliberation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(2), 120–124.
Morar, N. (2009). The limits of discourse ethics concerning the responsibility toward nature, nonhuman animals, and future generations. In B. Olaru (Ed.), Autonomy, responsibility, and health care. Critical reflections (pp. 129–157). Bucharest: Zeta Books.
Moran, M., et al. (2012). Public ethics and the governance of emerging biotechnologies. In Emerging technologies: Technology, choice, and the public good (pp. 56–71). London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Pekelharing, P. (2002). Minimalism with a vengeance. In J. Keulartz, M. Korthals, M. Schermer, & T. Swierstra (Eds.), Pragmatist ethics for a technological culture (pp. 217–221). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Prilleltensky, I., Rossiter, A., & Walsh-Bowers, R. (1996). Preventing harm and promoting ethical discourse in the helping professions: Conceptual, research, analytical, and action frameworks. Ethics & Behavior, 6(4), 287–306.
Solum, E. M., Slettebø, A., & Hauge, S. (2008). Prevention of unethical actions in nursing home. Nursing Ethics, 15(4), 536–547.
Further Readings
Benhabib, S., & Dallmayr, F. (Eds.). (1990). The communicative ethics controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1990 [1983]). Moral consciousness and communicative action (trans: Lenhardt, C., & Weber Nicholsen, S.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1996 [1992]). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (trans: Rehg, W.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Rehg, W. (1994). Insight and solidarity. The discourse ethics of Jürgen Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this entry
Cite this entry
Metselaar, S., Widdershoven, G. (2016). Discourse Ethics. In: ten Have, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_145
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_145
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09482-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09483-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities