Abstract

This dissertation investigates contemporary ethical theories which employ formal procedures to test the validity of moral principles. Although the work draws on a number of sources, the central argument concerns two theorists: John Rawls, who uses a rational choice or contract model, and Jurgen Habermas, who has put forward a discourse model of procedural ethics. The thrust of this argument is to identify those features which set Habermas' work apart from other types of proceduralism. The dissertation then defends a version of proceduralism based on communication, or what Habermas often calls a dialogic proceduralism, as superior to the contract or rational choice model. It argues, first, that Habermas' dialogical approach makes his theory a more plausible interpretation of the "moral point of view" buried deep within our existing belief system; second, that it enables him to respond to many of the legitimate criticisms of proceduralism levelled by communitarians and contextualists; and third, that it links an ethics of justice and rights to a politics of participation and democracy.