Abstract

The article tries to compare the term consensus as used by Kwasi Wiredu in his concept of an ethics of consensus with the usage of the same term by Karl-Otto Apel, founder of the so called ethics of discours. Whereas in Apels opinion consensus bases on rational argumentation and the recognition of the most convincing argument, Wiredu bases consensus on reconciliation and the will to keep harmony in the community. Even though both concepts are quite different, the discussion shows that they might be useful for each other.