Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action proposes that rational moral arguments are derived through discourse and seeking understanding between participants. Discourse is the process for finding objective moral truths impartially through rational argumentation between all affected parties. These universal norms can then be applied and translated to specific contexts through participation in communication and consensus seeking. The theory aims to ground morality in rationality rather than consequences or self-interest through idealized conditions of discourse.

1. Habermas’
Theory of Communicative Action

2. Theory
1. Rational Arguments:
Moral arguments based on rationality (vs. Horkheimer)  p.134,
172
2. Justification and Application:
Tension between why be morality (Aristotle) and how be
moral(Kant)  p. 128
3. Impartiality Condition:
Universal binding norms derived from objective truth which is
known through discourse and application  p. 124, 137, 158-9,
164-5
4. Participant-Observer:
Discourse, the process for finding understanding between
pluralistic life forms  p. 60, 142, 145, 156, 163, 166
© 2010 Tabea Hirzel

3. Rational Arguments
Kant’s categorical imperative claims impartiality
by universalization
Habermas adds appropiatness to this claim.
Horkheimer’s «…impossibility of
deriving from reason any
fundamental argument against
murder.» (p. 134)
How: If we know truth
we know the right
action, we know how
to be moral.
Why: If we want to be rational we
must be moral. Otherwise we
commite a performative
contradiction.
© 2010 Tabea Hirzel

4. Justification & Application
Aristotle: Why be
moral?  justification
of truth
Kant: What ought to
do?  truth test
Pragmatic:
Purposive, the useful, rational, a relative ought
Kant’s conditional imperative
Ethic:
Idealistic, the good, value decision, reflective, appropiative,
self-understanding, identity of substance
Kant’s unconditional imperative, Aristotles highest good
Moral:
Binding, the right, true, just,
Kant’s categorical imperative
If identity is interrelated, intersubjective  ethics = moral
If universality needs appropiatness  moral = pragmatic
Categories of action:
Vs. Horkheimer: « ‘With God dies eternal truth’ … everything
to do with morality derives from theology.» (p. 137)
Habermas: Justice and
application are
complementary (p.
154)
© 2010 Tabea Hirzel

5. Impartiality Condition
Habermas: Discourse in ideal
communication (. 145) as context
transcending truth-claim decides on
the right answer
Horkheimer’: «The individual will … becomes
good when, through compassion, it recognizes
its true identity with all other things. (p. 142)
Moral argument on the«yes»or «no»of a statementrequires
Impartiality by universalization, i.e. abstraction from (a) motives, (b) particular situation, (c) concretecontext (p. 66)
Impartiality by application, i.e. participationof theinfinitecommunicativecommu, translating universal normsin concrete contexts (speech acts) (p. 60, 124)
Impartiality in process, i.e. useof arguments (p 156-7) in collectivedecisiontoachieveconviction(. 158)
Justice is compassion/solidarity and conscience (p. 135)
condition for identity (p. 154) and through communicative
action it is integrative (p. 166)
© 2010 Tabea Hirzel

6. Discoursive Loop
1. Appeal
2. Question
3. Crisis
4. Consensus
5. Translation
6. Meaning
7. Response
8.
Understanding
© 2010 Tabea Hirzel

7. Resume
• Deontological (p. 152):
– Theological/Consquentialist: you shall not murder (right) – in order to live and
avoid punishmente (from God)
– Deontologict: you shall not murder (right) – because it is not good for you
– Absolutist deontologist: you shall not kill (action) – because you are
responsible for any bad consequence of your action
• Cognitive (p. 153)
• Formalistic (p. 156), formal pragmatism (p. 154)
• Universalistic (p. 145): ideal discourse, impartiality
© 2010 Tabea Hirzel