Discourse ethics: foundation and relationship between Morals and Law

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Carmo, Luís Alexandre Dias do
Data de Publicação: 2011
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online)
Texto Completo: http://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/18980
Resumo: This paper investigates the Apelian reconstruction of the controversy between Habermas and Apel own, about the reasons and the relation between morality and law, while procedural conception of discursive of practical philosophy. So the objective is to show the relationship - methodologically important - of philosophical discourse in the specific treatment to the architectural discourse ethics. It supports the hypothesis that the debate and controversy between the two programs of ethical discourse derive from the fundamentally different way to develop the theme the relationship between metodological set out the philosophical and socio-recontructive sciences, empirical, and that is the difference in approach is relevant in a different way of addressing the moral and devise the concept of practical reason, which culminates in the understanding of practical reason as moral or non-prescription and the problem of your unit and / or how much of your specification. For Apel, it is important to determine this relationship as methodologically from that reflection effect will, in theory discursive division between two fundamental ways of thinking about the reasons and the relation between moral law and the police. Apel considers fundamental thing that Habermas does not accept, make the case that in view pragmatic- linguistic-metadiscourse is a philosophy that is relevant to the differentiation of the normative dimensions of practical reason.
id UFC-17_c9ecef3f8a39546ee9db76ef4414feeb
oai_identifier_str oai:periodicos.ufc:article/18980
network_acronym_str UFC-17
network_name_str Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Discourse ethics: foundation and relationship between Morals and LawÉtica do discurso: fundamentação e relação entre Moral e DireitoEthics. Transzendentalpragmatik. Apel. Responsibility. Law.Ética. Pragmática-transcendental. Apel. Responsabilidade. Direito.This paper investigates the Apelian reconstruction of the controversy between Habermas and Apel own, about the reasons and the relation between morality and law, while procedural conception of discursive of practical philosophy. So the objective is to show the relationship - methodologically important - of philosophical discourse in the specific treatment to the architectural discourse ethics. It supports the hypothesis that the debate and controversy between the two programs of ethical discourse derive from the fundamentally different way to develop the theme the relationship between metodological set out the philosophical and socio-recontructive sciences, empirical, and that is the difference in approach is relevant in a different way of addressing the moral and devise the concept of practical reason, which culminates in the understanding of practical reason as moral or non-prescription and the problem of your unit and / or how much of your specification. For Apel, it is important to determine this relationship as methodologically from that reflection effect will, in theory discursive division between two fundamental ways of thinking about the reasons and the relation between moral law and the police. Apel considers fundamental thing that Habermas does not accept, make the case that in view pragmatic- linguistic-metadiscourse is a philosophy that is relevant to the differentiation of the normative dimensions of practical reason.Neste trabalho investiga-se a reconstrução apeliana da controvérsia, entre Habermas e o próprio Apel, acerca da fundamentação e relação entre a moral e o direito, enquanto concepção procedimental discursiva da filosofia prática. Assim, objetiva-se mostrar a relação - metodologicamente importante - do discurso filosófico no trato específico para a arquitetônica da ética do discurso. Defende-se a hipótese de que o debate e a controvérsia entre ambos os programas da ética do discurso decorrem fundamentalmente do modo diferenciado de tematizar a relação metodológica entre enunciados filosóficos e enunciados das ciências sócio-reconstrutivas, empíricas, e que essa diferença de abordagem é relevante na forma distinta de tratarem a moral e conceberem o conceito de razão prática, que culmina na compreensão desta como razão prática moral ou não prescritiva, bem como, o problema da sua unidade e/ou quanto de sua especificação. Para Apel, é importante a determinação dessa relação metodológica, pois a partir dessa reflexão efetivar-se-á, na teoria discursiva, uma cisão entre dois modos fundamentais de pensar a fundamentação e relação entre a moral, o direito e a política. Apel considera fundamental, coisa que Habermas não aceita, defender a tese de que, na perspectiva lingüístico-pragmática, existe um metadiscurso filosófico que é relevante para a diferenciação das dimensões normativas da razão prática.Universidade Federal do Ceará2011-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPeer-reviewed Articleapplication/pdfhttp://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/18980Argumentos - Revista de Filosofia; No 5Argumentos - Periódico de Filosofia; Núm. 5Argumentos - Revista de Filosofia; n. 51984-42551984-4247reponame:Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online)instname:Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)instacron:UFCporhttp://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/18980/29699Copyright (c) 2017 Argumentosinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCarmo, Luís Alexandre Dias do2021-07-24T12:15:20Zoai:periodicos.ufc:article/18980Revistahttp://www.filosofia.ufc.br/argumentosPUBhttp://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/oaiargumentos@ufc.br||1984-42551984-4247opendoar:2021-07-24T12:15:20Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) - Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Discourse ethics: foundation and relationship between Morals and Law
Ética do discurso: fundamentação e relação entre Moral e Direito
title Discourse ethics: foundation and relationship between Morals and Law
spellingShingle Discourse ethics: foundation and relationship between Morals and Law
Carmo, Luís Alexandre Dias do
Ethics. Transzendentalpragmatik. Apel. Responsibility. Law.
Ética. Pragmática-transcendental. Apel. Responsabilidade. Direito.
title_short Discourse ethics: foundation and relationship between Morals and Law
title_full Discourse ethics: foundation and relationship between Morals and Law
title_fullStr Discourse ethics: foundation and relationship between Morals and Law
title_full_unstemmed Discourse ethics: foundation and relationship between Morals and Law
title_sort Discourse ethics: foundation and relationship between Morals and Law
author Carmo, Luís Alexandre Dias do
author_facet Carmo, Luís Alexandre Dias do
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Carmo, Luís Alexandre Dias do
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Ethics. Transzendentalpragmatik. Apel. Responsibility. Law.
Ética. Pragmática-transcendental. Apel. Responsabilidade. Direito.
topic Ethics. Transzendentalpragmatik. Apel. Responsibility. Law.
Ética. Pragmática-transcendental. Apel. Responsabilidade. Direito.
description This paper investigates the Apelian reconstruction of the controversy between Habermas and Apel own, about the reasons and the relation between morality and law, while procedural conception of discursive of practical philosophy. So the objective is to show the relationship - methodologically important - of philosophical discourse in the specific treatment to the architectural discourse ethics. It supports the hypothesis that the debate and controversy between the two programs of ethical discourse derive from the fundamentally different way to develop the theme the relationship between metodological set out the philosophical and socio-recontructive sciences, empirical, and that is the difference in approach is relevant in a different way of addressing the moral and devise the concept of practical reason, which culminates in the understanding of practical reason as moral or non-prescription and the problem of your unit and / or how much of your specification. For Apel, it is important to determine this relationship as methodologically from that reflection effect will, in theory discursive division between two fundamental ways of thinking about the reasons and the relation between moral law and the police. Apel considers fundamental thing that Habermas does not accept, make the case that in view pragmatic- linguistic-metadiscourse is a philosophy that is relevant to the differentiation of the normative dimensions of practical reason.
publishDate 2011
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2011-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Peer-reviewed Article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/18980
url http://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/18980
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv http://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/18980/29699
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2017 Argumentos
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2017 Argumentos
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal do Ceará
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal do Ceará
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Argumentos - Revista de Filosofia; No 5
Argumentos - Periódico de Filosofia; Núm. 5
Argumentos - Revista de Filosofia; n. 5
1984-4255
1984-4247
reponame:Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online)
instname:Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)
instacron:UFC
instname_str Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)
instacron_str UFC
institution UFC
reponame_str Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online)
collection Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) - Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv argumentos@ufc.br||
_version_ 1797068845390757888