Journal of Global Ethics 6 (2):153-166 (2010)
Using the example of contemporary Islamic fundamentalism, and especially the writings of Sayyid Qutb, this article raises questions about discourse ethics as a mode of conflict resolution. It appears that discourse ethics is only relevant when all parties have already agreed to settle disputes deliberatively and already share the notions of rational deliberation and individual autonomy. This raises questions not only about the capability of discourse ethics to incorporate a deep plurality of worldviews, but also about its capability to successfully solve disputes. When confronting situations where the willingness to deliberate is absent, discourse ethics is left standing empty handed. This, I argue, is due to both the conceptual distinction between communicative action and strategic action, as well as the abstracted nature of Habermas's discourse ethics
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Moral Imaginary of Discourse Ethics.Kenneth MacKendrick - 2000 - Critical Horizons 1 (2):247-269.
Discourse Ethics and Social Accountability.Dirk Ulrich Gilbert & Andreas Rasche - 2007 - Business Ethics Quarterly 17 (2):187-216.
Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy.Hugh Baxter - 2011 - Stanford Law Books.
Procedural Justice?: Implications of the Rawls-Habermas Debate for Discourse Ethics.Cristina Lafont - 2003 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 29 (2):163-181.
Tapping Habermas's Discourse Theory for Environmental Ethics.W. S. K. Cameron - 2009 - Environmental Ethics 31 (4):339-357.
Dialogue Among Friends: Toward a Discourse Ethic of Interpersonal Relationships.Jean Keller - 2008 - Hypatia 23 (4):pp. 158-181.
Added to index2010-08-16
Total downloads43 ( #122,130 of 2,177,988 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #317,698 of 2,177,988 )
How can I increase my downloads?