Skip to main content

Discourse Ethics

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 1,799.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 1,999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Apel, K.-O. (1980). Towards a transformation of philosophy (trans: Adey, G., & Frisby, D.). London: Routledge/Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib, S., & Dallmayr, F. (Eds.). (1990). The communicative ethics controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fardella, J. A. (2008). The recovery model: Discourse ethics and the retrieval of the self. Journal of Medical Humanities, 29, 111–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunson, D. (2012). What is the Habermasian perspective in bioethics? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 21(2), 188–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1998). Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1973). Wahrheitstheorien. In H. Fahrenbach (Ed.), Wirklichkeit und Reflection. Festschrift für Walter Schulz (pp. 211–263). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molewijk, B., Kleinlugtenbelt, D., & Widdershoven, G. (2011). The role of emotions in moral case deliberation. Theory, practice, and methodology. Bioethics, 25(7), 383–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solum, E. M., Slettebø, A., & Hauge, S. (2008). Prevention of unethical actions in nursing home. Nursing Ethics, 15(4), 536–547.

    Google Scholar 

Further Readings

  • Benhabib, S., & Dallmayr, F. (Eds.). (1990). The communicative ethics controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1990 [1983]). Moral consciousness and communicative action (trans: Lenhardt, C., & Weber Nicholsen, S.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehg, W. (1994). Insight and solidarity. The discourse ethics of Jürgen Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Suzanne Metselaar or Guy Widdershoven .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics