There is a newer version of this record available.

Journal article Open Access

# Discourse ethics as ethics relative to institutions

Scivoletto, Gonzalo

### Dublin Core Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
<dc:creator>Scivoletto, Gonzalo</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2020-03-31</dc:date>
<dc:description>The present work aims to point out some possible tasks for the Karl-Otto Apel´s discourse ethics today. Such tasks may concentrate on the need for a theory of the institutionalization of practical discourse, as a form of socially realized practical rationality. The question that has to be answered is what frame conditions should be found in the discourse so that it can be put into practice and what political-institutional effects it can produce in the context of really existing institutions. Starting with Gehlen and Luhmann -although to a lesser extent-, Apel interprets institutions as systems of self-affirmation that, on the one hand, free the subjects from the burden of action, but, on the other hand, limit or determine the consensual-argumentative rationality of discourse. The functional coercions (Sachzwänge) of the institutions configure a field of action and a type of rationality that, according to Apel, should be under the control of institutionalized discourse as a rational public sphere (Öffentlichkeit). The relationship between the ideal normative criteria of the institutionalized practical discourse and the existing institutions must be interpreted as a non-surmountable dialectical tension or intertwining. If this interpretation is correct, the discourse ethics, as a critical theory of society, cannot be understood as an application without more ideal normative criteria to the historical reality or adaptation of that reality to ideal criteria in its vertical sense, but as a mutual horizontal correlation.</dc:description>
<dc:identifier>https://zenodo.org/record/4071854</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>10.5281/zenodo.4071854</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>oai:zenodo.org:4071854</dc:identifier>
<dc:language>spa</dc:language>
<dc:relation>issn:2254-0601</dc:relation>
<dc:relation>doi:10.5281/zenodo.4071853</dc:relation>
<dc:relation>url:https://zenodo.org/communities/disputatio</dc:relation>
<dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
<dc:source>Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin 9(12) 0-00</dc:source>
<dc:subject>Institutions</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Discourse</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Application</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Democracy</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Critique</dc:subject>
<dc:title>Discourse ethics as ethics relative to institutions</dc:title>
<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
<dc:type>publication-article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>

657
226
views