Talk:Discourse ethics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Too technical[edit]

I appreciate the effort that has gone into this very difficult subject. However, if there is any way to make at least each section introduction less technical/jargony, it would help immensely. For example, in the first sentence, what is meant by the phrases " normative or ethical truths" and "presuppositions of discourse?" I can guess, but if there's an expert who can clarify it would be great. I see that someone has tried this in the next paragraph ("This means that it is an attempt to explain the universal and obligatory nature of morality by evoking the universal obligations of communicative rationality."), which is great, except that the explanation sentence quoted here doesn't help me. And I have a PhD (admittedly it's in ocean sciences, not Kantian ethics). I don't expect any article that needs the phrase "normative validity" to be simple, but some clear explanation for the lay-reader is probably important. Jed (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

blatant bias[edit]

looks like some asshole from the mises institute deleted the whole section that talked about other libertarians who presented the same argument before this guy hoppe did.

that section should be put back ASAP

Cite missing[edit]

The source "Madison (1986)" is missing from the bibliography. --zenohockey 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has been added (more than once, even). 24.141.65.72 22:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Socialist"?[edit]

I fail to see the need to classify the traditional discourse ethics of Habermas and Apel as socialist. They surely need to be distinguished from the authors and theories mentioned further down on the page, but it seems like an undue generalisation to use a political term to classify a theory which appears to have primarily moral implications. If there are good reasons that I fail to understand, maybe someone could give them here? Otherwise I suggest a more politically neutral headline (or perhaps no headline at all, since the "libertarian approaches" mentioned below seem to either build on the works of Habermas and Apel or be different theories altogether (and while perhaps related to discourse ethics not appropriately classified under that title)). --PModin 19:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason is to compare and contrast the different applications or uses of the theory--it is a bit interseting and striking that some reach libertarian conclusions (Hoppe) and others (such as Hoppe's teacher, Habermas) reach more socialistic or welfare-statist conclusions. Seems worth pointing out to me; it's not meant to be loaded or anything more than descriptive. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 23:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail too to understand any socialist conclusion in Habermas.IsmaelPR 15:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic rather than "socialist"[edit]

Yes, I agree with PModin that "socialist" is not very precise. Although both Apel and Habermas belong to the left, it is unfair to brand them as some kind of socialist philosophers. From a European perspective they appear as progressive philosophers rather than socialists in the political term. "Collectivist" seems better than "socialistic", since the latter gives unnecessary political connotations. Americans might misunderstand this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtom77 (talk • contribs)

Collectivist sounds ok with me. Intangible 00:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start new page for Argumentation Ethics ?[edit]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe's work on what has come to be called his argumentation ethics approach to libertarian theory is a growing, large, and potentially very large topic.

Might we consider creating a new page something like "Argumentation ethics (libertarian)" or perhaps "Praxeological justification of libertarianism" and then linking to it from Discourse ethics and labeling it as the "Main page" ?

As a start, the current text of the libertarian version of the topic could simply be copied and pasted to the new page. After that, each page could evolve as appropriate. --RayBirks 18:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

needs a section about criticisms of discourse ethics.[edit]

Can't imagine there are none. I am not familiar enough with the topic or I would take a shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.238.9 (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Discourse ethics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section relies on "Harvard Law Review" in a way that seems to violate NPOV[edit]

The Harvard Law Review accurately examines public discourse and explains it in a manner that is appropriate and conceptually accurate. "Every man who publishes a book commits himself to the judgement of the public, and anyone may comment upon his performance.... [W]hatever their merits, others have a right to pass their judgement upon them-to censure them if they be censurable, and to turn them into ridicule if they be ridiculous".[4] For the public discourse ethic to be productive there must be accountability on the public stage as the Harvard Law Review calls into question.

This seems to violate NPOV with its language. Nothing wrong with citing a law journal in an article about discourse ethics, but this is excessive.

107.3.128.7 (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freud?[edit]

Can anyone point to where Freud said "civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock" in the Interpretation of Dreams. It is correct that the source pointed to attributes this to Freud https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=234103074096007112121115112030114117007063081059035051122026118022075109105002118081041018096039040035032004117026113098067077107034025084050094024067026118002027019023049012021085066012072127065002087079005079004083065088081091116071108127117019103092&EXT=pdf , but in Freud, S. (2010). The interpretation of dreams. (J. Strachey, Ed.). New York: Basic Books A Member of the Perseus Books Group. this does not occur. And what is really the point of this reference/apocrypha?

Ref: It was Sigmund Freud who once said, "civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock" and that statement is something that continues to be seen in society today.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiraler (talk • contribs) 14:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Year[edit]

When did he releas this idea? Romina tafazoli (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Discourse_ethics&oldid=1201555141"