The rules of the rationality of practical discourse in the light of ethics of discourse: An analysis of Robert Alexy’s proposal

Lariguet, Guillermo

doi:10.2478/ebce-2019-0001

Abstract

The author discusses the rational argumentation of the values from a proposal defended by the legal philosopher Robert Alexy. The paper shows that discourse for Alexy is essentially a regulated activity. A model of certain rules ensure the rationality and correctness of practical discourse oriented towards resolving conflicts of value. Firstly, the types of rules responsible for the rationality of practical argumentation are described. Secondly, some open problems relating to the claim to correctness of reasoned practical discourse are posed, namely problems derived from the idea of consensus and that of a single correct answer to certain practical issues that include conflicts of values and raise basic disagreements.

References

ALEXY, R. (1989): Teoría de la Argumentación Jurídica [Theory of legal argumentation], translated by Manuel Atienza and Isabel Espejo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
ALEXY, R. (1999): The special case thesis. In: Ratio Juris. An international journal of jurisprudence and philosophy of law, 12(4), pp. 374–384.10.1111/1467-9337.00131
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
ALEXY, R. (2014): Constitutional rights and proportionality. In: Revus: journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law, 22, pp. 51–65.10.4000/revus.2783
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
ÁLVAREZ, S. (2008): Pluralismo Moral y Conflictos de Derechos Fundamentales [Moral pluralism and conflicts of fundamental rights]. In: Doxa. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 31, pp. 21–54.10.14198/DOXA2008.31.02
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
APEL, K. O. (1991): Teoría de la verdad y ética del discurso [Theory of truth and discourse ethics], translated by Norberto Smilg, Introduction by Adela Cortina. Barcelona: Paidós.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
ATIENZA, M. (2017): Las razones del Derecho. Teorías de la Argumentación Jurídica [The reasons of law. Theories of legal argumentation] Lima: Palestra.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
BESSON, S. (2005): The morality of conflict: Reasonable disagreement and the law. Oxford: Hart publishing.10.5040/9781472563491
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
CHANG, R. (1998): Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
ELSTER, J. (1998): Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139175005
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
FETERIS, E. (2003): The Rationality of Legal Discourse in Habermas’s Discourse Theory. In: Informal Logic, 23(2), pp. 139–159.10.22329/il.v23i2.2164
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
FETERIS, E. (2017): Fundamentals of legal argumentation: A survey of theories on justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht: Springer.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
FORST, R. (2011): The right to justification: Elements of a constructivist theory of justice, translated by Jeffrey Flynn. New York: Columbia University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
GUTMANN, A. & THOMPSON, D. (2004): Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400826339
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
HABERMAS, J. (2000): Aclaraciones a la ética del discurso [Clarifications to Discourse Ethics], translated by Manuel Jiménez Redondo. Barcelona: Trotta.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
JOHNSTON, J. S. (2016): Is there a need for transcendental arguments in discourse ethics? In: Educational Theory, 66(6), pp. 719–734.10.1111/edth.12212
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
KÖLBEL, M. (2004): Faultless disagreement. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, 104(1), pp. 53–73.10.1111/j.0066-7373.2004.00081.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
LARIGUET, G. (2008): Dilemas y conflictos trágicos. Una investigación conceptual [Tragic Conflicts and Dilemmas: A Conceptual Enquiry]. Lima: Palestra.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
LARIGUET, G. (2011a): ¡Las normas deben ser acordadas por todos los afectados! Una crítica a la ética del discurso [Norms have to be agreed by all the affected! A critique of the discourse ethics]. In: Universitas. Revista de Filosofía, Derecho, Política, 14(7), pp. 75–89.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
LARIGUET, G. (2011b): Encrucijadas Morales. Una aproximación a los dilemas y su impacto en el razonamiento práctico [Moral crossroads: An approach to dilemmas and their impact on practical reasoning], Prologue by René González de la Vega. Madrid: Plaza y Valdés.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
MALIANDI, R. (2010): Discurso y Convergencia. La ética discursiva de Karl-Otto Apel y el laberinto de los conflictos [Discourse and Convergence: The discourse ethics of Karl-Otto Apel and the labyrinths of conflicts]. Buenos Aires: Oinos.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
MARTÍ, J. L. (2006): La República Deliberativa. Una teoría de la democracia [The Deliberative Republic: A Theory of Democracy]. Madrid: Marcial Pons.10.2307/jj.2321989
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
WALDRON, J. (1999): Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198262138.001.0001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
WOJCIECHOWSKI, B. (2010): Discourse ethics as a basis of application of law. In: J. Jemielniak & P. Micklaszewicz (eds.): Interpretation of law in the global world: From particularism to a universal Approach. New York: Springer, pp. 53–69.10.1007/978-3-642-04886-9_3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
WOLF, S. (1992): Two levels of pluralism. In: Ethics, 102(4), pp. 785–798.10.1086/293448
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

The rules of the rationality of practical discourse in the light of ethics of discourse: An analysis of Robert Alexy’s proposal

Abstract

Paradigm

My account