The Sublation Of Discourse Ethics On Kant's Ethics

The validity of moral norms is one of research contexts of practice philosophy. From Aristotle to utilitarianism, and to the classical philosophy of Kant, this problem as the focal point had been discussed in ethical. In the opinion of Aristotle, moral norms embodied a character of ethical-existential sense. In the opinion of utilitarianism, moral norms embodied a kind of wisdom, in accordance with an Angle of utility, using a kind of pragmatic strategies, techniques and methods to pursue goals according to instrumental rationality. In the opinion of Kant, moral norms embodied a meaning and function in the moral-practice aspect. Habermas discussed the three main sources in the first part of Justification and Application. He elaborated the pragmatic, the ethical, and the moral employments of practical reason. And he took the distinction between pragmatic (goal-directed), ethical (good), and moral (justice) questions as a guide to differentiating the various uses of practical reason. As a defender of the normative ethics, Habermas was obviously inclined to research the validity of moral norms in the moral-practice aspect. He thought that the categorical "ought" of moral injunctions was directed to the free will, emphatically construed, of a person who acts in accordance with self-given laws. This will alone is autonomous (Only a will that is guided by moral insight, and hence is completely rational, can be called autonomous.), because it is completely open to determination by moral insights. In the sphere of validity of the moral law, neither contingent dispositions nor life histories and personal identities set limits to the determination of the will by practice reason. Whether the benefit patterns and value orientations are consistent with all others' benefit patterns and value orientations is inspected only from moral perspective and will obtains liberation from heteronomy. Everyone must accept all others'perspective and examine whether a norm is agreed from the point of view of anyone. This is an ideal speed situation in the pursuit of understanding. Thus, Habermas's discourse ethics follows the tradition of Kant's ethics and considers how to solve the question of universal validity of norms in the moral-practice aspect of practice reason. Therefore, discourse ethics can be regarded as reconstruction of Kant's ethics in modern. In the other hand, though Habermas and Kant's ethics have high consistency in moral principle, universal validity of ethics norms and cognitive position of moral philosophy, this does not hide the distinguish between research manners and research visions of the two persons, which reveals that Kant's ethics is transcended by discourse ethics. For the modern moral philosophy, especially in the situation of moral confusions in the postmodern context, the discourse ethics provides a way to solve the moral behavior disputes and makes moral norms obtain a universal understanding. Due to its inherent preconditions, of course, discourse ethics makes itself a brand of utopian ideals, and encounters a series of challenges such as moral skepticism, relativism and heterogeneous pluralism in the postmodern contexts. Anyway, Habermas exalts normative ethics, and emphasize highly moral universalism in contemporary, which shows Habermas's efforts and rational expectations in order to escape from the plight of modernity.