A Discourse-Theoretical Conception of Practical Reason

R. Alexy
{"title":"A Discourse-Theoretical Conception of Practical Reason","authors":"R. Alexy","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198796831.003.0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary discussions about practical reason or practical rationality invoke four competing views, which, by reference to their historical models, can be named as follows: Aristotelian, Hobbesian, Kantian, and Nietzschean. The subject matter of this chapter is a defence of the Kantian conception of practical rationality in the interpretation of discourse theory. At the core lies the justification and the application of the rules of discourse. An argument consisting of three parts is presented to justify the rules of discourse. The three parts are as follows: a transcendental-pragmatic argument, an argument that takes account of the maximization of individual utility, and an empirical premise addressing an interest in correctness. Within the framework of the problem of application, the chapter outlines a justification of human rights and of the basic institutions of the democratic constitutional state on the basis of discourse theory.","PeriodicalId":142448,"journal":{"name":"Law's Ideal Dimension","volume":"225 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law's Ideal Dimension","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198796831.003.0018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Contemporary discussions about practical reason or practical rationality invoke four competing views, which, by reference to their historical models, can be named as follows: Aristotelian, Hobbesian, Kantian, and Nietzschean. The subject matter of this chapter is a defence of the Kantian conception of practical rationality in the interpretation of discourse theory. At the core lies the justification and the application of the rules of discourse. An argument consisting of three parts is presented to justify the rules of discourse. The three parts are as follows: a transcendental-pragmatic argument, an argument that takes account of the maximization of individual utility, and an empirical premise addressing an interest in correctness. Within the framework of the problem of application, the chapter outlines a justification of human rights and of the basic institutions of the democratic constitutional state on the basis of discourse theory.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实践理性的话语理论概念
当代关于实践理性或实践理性的讨论援引了四种相互竞争的观点,根据它们的历史模式,它们可以被命名为:亚里士多德的、霍布斯的、康德的和尼采的。本章的主题是在话语理论的解释中为康德的实践理性概念辩护。其核心是话语规则的正当化和运用。本文提出了一个由三部分组成的论证来证明语篇规则的合理性。这三个部分如下:一个先验-语用论证,一个考虑个人效用最大化的论证,以及一个处理正确性利益的经验前提。在适用问题的框架内,本章以话语理论为基础,概述了人权和民主宪政国家基本制度的正当性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Discourse-Theoretical Conception of Practical Reason Law and Correctness Human Dignity and Proportionality An Answer to Joseph Raz Ideal ‘Ought’ and Optimization
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1