Understanding Ethics: From Kant to Dialogue
Freedom is the Basis
Immanuel Kant (18th century) believed that freedom is the main characteristic of rational beings. Kant thought that without presupposing freedom of choice, it is not meaningful to talk about morality. The moral dimension of human beings cannot be understood without freedom because it makes no sense to tell someone what to do and what behaviors should be followed. An important consequence of this is that humans have dignity and not a price; they cannot be exchanged or manipulated because they have absolute value.
The Fact of the Argument
People can give reasons, justifications, and motives. This fact, the ability to argue, is for Karl-Otto Apel the foundation of morality. When we present to others truly sincere reasons, and those reasons that we have discovered, we are accepting a fundamental moral norm. We recognize that others are valid interlocutors, that is, that others are also capable of arguing on equal circumstances as us and that their reasons are equally valid and real as ours.
Kantian Formalism: What Should I Do?
Moral norms are to have universal validity. The mandate should require everyone; that is, everyone should do something unconditionally. It is a formalist ethics, without matter, just based on the form of the mandate. Kantian ethics rejects material considerations as selfish, conditional, subjective, and heteronomous. It seeks a deontological and procedural ethics seeking a universally binding mandate. This command is what Kant calls the categorical imperative and has three formulations:
- Act so that your action may be taken as universal law.
- Act in such a way that your action can be taken as a universal law of nature.
- Act in such a way that you take the other as an end and not as a means; do not manipulate.
The fundamental premise is freedom understood as autonomy against moral heteronomy. The best thing in the world is goodwill.
Dialogue or Discourse Ethics
Kant’s solitary goodwill is replaced by a community dialogue. To access the dialogue, there are two conditions:
- The absence of repression.
- All opinions are equal.
The reformulation of the categorical imperative: Act only according to a maxim such that you can assume that the consequences and foreseeable results of their universal monitoring could be accepted without coercion by all concerned. Dialogue is the standard procedure for taking into account the consequences of the rule and the interests of individuals. Moving from an ethics of intention to one of responsibility. It is not just to reach a consensus about love, but also the interests of individuals.
Pluralism
A pluralist society is made up of people with different moral views, religious beliefs, and ideals of life. To make life possible, some commonalities need to be given. Pluralism means that common values are the minimum that must be respected to make life possible; they are the contents of civic ethics. These are minimum requirements, which means that all are bound by them and may require others to respect them. A preference that everyone wants to take his life, in a concrete way of seeing the world, their beliefs and convictions, we call maxims of happiness.
A More Conversational Approach
To build a world of citizens, we must adopt dialogue as a method for resolving conflicts caused by life with a view to reaching an understanding and not imposed by force. Communicative ethics has studied the main features of the dialogical attitude. Those involved in negotiations look to get their own benefit, to satisfy their own interests. The end of the negotiation is usually the covenant, which is set to have to give each of the beginning and what benefits you get. The dialogue participants consider others as persons with whom it is possible to get accurate and common interests to meet everyone. So they are treated as individuals. The purpose of dialogue is to reach an agreement, that is, an understanding that takes into account the interests of all.