Una cuestión de interés. Sobre la justificación del discurso práctico de Robert Alexy
Among the various attempts to justify the norms of practical discourse, the universal pragmatic theory of HABERMAS (HABERMAS 1995 (1976); 1983) and the transcendental-pragmatic ultimate justification of APEL (APEL 1973; 1998 (1976)) should especially be considered. By means of his strategy of justif...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Published: |
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=5805209 |
| Source: | Revista Derecho del Estado, ISSN 0122-9893, Nº. 36, 2016, pags. 271-329 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| Summary: |
Among the various attempts to justify the norms of practical discourse, the universal pragmatic theory of HABERMAS (HABERMAS 1995 (1976); 1983) and the transcendental-pragmatic ultimate justification of APEL (APEL 1973; 1998 (1976)) should especially be considered. By means of his strategy of justification of discourse norms, (ALEXY 1991; 1993; 1995) Alexy has responded to a systemic requirement of his own theory of argumentation which has been defined by him as a Kantian theory. (ALEXY 1995) That is why ALEXYʼS proposal takes on characteristics of its own, which distinguish it from previous attempts of justification. The Alexyan justification of the constitutive norms of discourse is composed of two levels: The first level directed towards the justification of their universal validity from the pragmatic point of view, and the second complementary level directed towards the justification of their universal validity from the practical perspective. Given that the starting point of the transcendental argument that ALEXY uses for the justification of the constitutive norms of discourse at the pragmatic level is based on empirical reasons, the skeptic does not accept this argument because it is true, but because it is plausible. This justification seems too weak to sustain the ontological claim required for making explicit the constitutive norms of our discursive practices. In order to demonstrate the universal practical validity of rationality principles, Alexy has introduced the distinction in the field of speech between subjective validity and objective validity. (ALEXY 1995) Regarding the first one, ALEXY has held the categorical validity of rationality principles. Regarding the second one, Alexyʼs account has to assume that rationality principles are hypothetical in nature, due to the fact that ALEXYʼS account attempts to demonstrate the universal validity of these norms based on their motivational power. Due to the fact that the rationality principles are sufficient conditions for reaching the aim of the ideal discursive practice which is defined by the principle of universalization, the categorical or hypothetical feature that is attributed to these norms will also be attributed to the principle of universalization. In this vein, according to ALEXYʼS account the principle of universalization has a double nature. Indeed, from the subjective practical point of view, this principle has categorical validity. From the objective practical point of view this principle has hypothetical validity. However, if the hypothetical nature of the principle of universalization is assumed, then this principle will no longer be a moral norm in the Kantian sense. In this way, the rational discourse theory will lose its distinctiveness. |
|---|