Habermas: Communicative Rationality & Ethical Dialogue
Jürgen Habermas
Jürgen Habermas was born in Düsseldorf in 1929. He collaborated with Adorno at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt between 1956 and 1959. He devoted himself to teaching and to analyzing the relationship between science and society. Today, he is considered one of the premier global philosophers. In 2003, he received the Prince of Asturias Award. Among his works are Knowledge and Human Interests, Theory of Communicative Action, and The Future of Human Nature.
A New Paradigm for Philosophy
Throughout the history of philosophy, especially since Descartes, the dominant paradigm has been understanding the relationship between subjects and objects. The subject perceives everything around them as a potential object of knowledge and activity. The subject is an observer, dominating everything (an idea from modern, specifically Cartesian, philosophy). Rationality is used as an end-middle: objects are instruments or means to achieve the subject’s goals. We know things to handle and manipulate our environment. This is instrumental rationality. Reality is understood through this lens, where the subject is central. Everything around is merely objects for personal gain, with nothing else holding the same status as the self.
Habermas argues this relationship is problematic and defunct as a philosophical paradigm. The subject reduces everything, including themselves and others, to objects and instruments. This stems from science and technology, which objectively provide the best tools for specific purposes. The rule of instrumental reason leads to scientism, claiming science as the only genuine form of knowledge. Scientism implies ethics lacks intersubjectivity, rendering moral issues subjective and irrational. It asserts rationality exists only in science. Moreover, instrumental reason’s monopoly necessitates experts and technicians who master applying means to ends, reducing technical rationality and excluding non-experts from rationally thinking about their lives.
Instrumental rationality conceives everything as a means, including humans, who become reified. Art and thought are seen as means to satisfy the masses, with the market determining their value, leading to a mass culture that discourages autonomous individuals and solidarity, fostering heteronomy and loneliness. Democracy’s roots, including freedom, equality, and solidarity, are weakened as these values are deemed subjective and relative.
This rationale must be overcome without discarding all modern philosophy. Many philosophical ideas should be retained, but the instrumental rationality paradigm should be replaced with intersubjectivity and communication. Instead of viewing relationships as object utilization, we should understand them as communication aimed at mutual understanding through language. The world is not just about “I” but also “you” with whom one interacts. An interpersonal relationship is established when “I” make a speech act and “you” take a position. In every communication act, participants expect mutual understanding, moving beyond the isolated individual of instrumental rationality.
Habermas advocates for communicative rationality, emphasizing language as the basic vehicle of communication. We must focus on language as it is spoken and used, not as a perfect, logical, formal system, but on its pragmatic dimension.
Language, Rationality, and Morality
In dialogue, we can reach an informed consensus on matters others can understand; otherwise, the discussion is pointless. Language can describe the world or direct action, but in both cases, a community of meaning, agreement, and consensus is necessary (communication requires shared understanding of word meanings). This community and agreement are inherent in human language. For dialogue, all participants must be treated as equals.
Habermas questions how to determine if a moral rule is correct. Relativism posits all rules have equal value, while skepticism claims we can never know which rule is more correct. Habermas argues people reflect and provide reasons for a rule’s correctness or incorrectness. Saying “you have to do this” implies clear reasons and a call to action.
Conflicts arise when some believe a rule is correct while others believe it is wrong. Historically, violence resolved such conflicts, with one group imposing its rules. Habermas proposes consensus based on dialogue, or communicative rationality, as the moral solution. For communicative rationality to achieve agreement, Habermas’s “ideal speech situation” or “symmetry conditions” must exist:
- Any person may participate in the discourse.
- Anyone may problematize any assertion.
- Anyone can make any statement.
- Anyone can express their positions, desires, and needs.
- There can be no external or internal coercion preventing the above conditions.
These are not a priori ethical dialogue theories or metaphysical derivatives but necessary conditions for non-immoral debate, enabling communicative rationality in ethics. The universal postulate states a rule is valid if all affected can freely accept its consequences, representing universalized interests.
The universality principle provides a criterion for deciding the correct procedure for accepting ethical standards in conflicts. The discourse ethical postulate suggests standards apply only when accepted by all participants in an ethical discourse. This is the solution for our world’s moral conflicts.
In conclusion, the importance of ethics lies in dialogic communicative rationality, which respects individuality and freedom while possessing a universal dimension of solidarity, impartiality, and universality in rational and moral debate. Habermas avoids dogmatism (believing a rule is absolutely correct without accepting criticism or dialogue) and relativism (claiming no rule is superior). Similarly, we should not dogmatically defend scientific theories, as they may be proven false, nor should we be relativists believing no theory is better than others.
Habermas emphasizes the attitude of this rationale: dialogue, providing arguments, and finding common ground with others’ perspectives. It involves accepting cultural pluralism and resolving conflicts through reason, seeking commonalities. This approach includes all positions and accepts the opinions of all capable of speech and thought. It blends universalism (results affect all participants) with acceptance of differences (all positions are accepted in dialogue), without dogmatically imposing moral content. This reflects the moral principles inherent in ethical dialogue: equality, impartiality, and universality.