Discourse ethics theory, developed by Jürgen Habermas, can be understood as a continuation of Kant’s categorical imperative. The aim of Kant’s categorical imperative lies in testing norms for their moral validity. Habermas develops this idea and adds that the test should be conducted through the discourse between those affected by the ethical dilemma. Therefore, the categorical imperative for discourse ethics is that the moral worthiness of a norm is proved not by the intellectual work of an individual, as Kant suggests, but through reaching a moral consensus in a discourse.
One of the drawbacks of the discourse ethics theory is its universalism. The idea implies that the human species consider communication as a fundamental concept in establishing a moral law (Krüger, 2016, p. 7). It means that the application of discourse ethics requires room for the discourse to happen. However, certain situations cannot allow fair argumentation because the very fact that the discourse is happening can be unethical. For example, one agent questions the existence of God, and following the principles of discourse ethics, has all the rights to participate in a debate with a religious agent formally and politely. However, the situation can be considered unethical if the discourse takes place in a church or a mosque; therefore, the assumption of fair argumentation does not hold because it does not consider whether the discourse itself is appropriate.
One more example of the drawback of fair argumentation is the difference in communication skills between the two sides. Krüger (2016) explains that the agreement on moral validity of a norm is reached when the agents recognize each other’s arguments as valid (p. 7). It means that both sides are required to provide claims that both parties understand. However, the situation where agents speak different languages might cause difficulties in reaching a moral consensus.
References
Krüger, F. (2016). Discourse ethics and the media. African Journalism Studies, 37(1), 21-39. Web.