Subject: Re: HAB: Third rock from the Sun
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:26:48 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)



On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:04:43 -0600 (Central Standard Time) Stephen Chilton 
<schilton-AT-d.umn.edu> wrote:

> I sort of agree with Ken, only rephrasing the last part as
> "because it's the best we seem to be able to do at the time."

The implication of my comments, if followed through and developed, kick the 
bottom out of the grounds on which Habermas postulates his moral theory. 
Habermas's discourse theory outlines a teleologically oriented theory of ego 
development to justify the choice between different forms of argumentation. If 
it is acknowledged that this his about "the" moral point of view requires 
institutional support in order to ensure its proliferation then there are no 
grounds on which to priivlege moral argumentation as the foundation of those 
institutions In other words, the argument is circular (and trivial from a 
logical point of view). Habermas is also proposing the creation of concrete 
institutional norms, but these same norms are said to provide the legitimate 
grounds of those very institutions. In short, lacking an ethical, culturally 
and historically contingent supposition about moral development, there is an 
unjustified privileging of the moral here - which *is* a metaphysical 
privileging (which is what I mean when I've discussed the question of moral 
priority). If this is the best we can do... then we can't call it 
postmetaphysical or postconvention. Just because we speak, and because language 
has structures, does mean that cognitive development is a oneway street of 
hierarchical forms ending with a non-contingent and transcendental 
consciousness (if even in the weak sense).

Hopefully this addresses some of Rob's points as well.

ken



     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---