Contra el nuevo revisionismo democrático: el alcance del valor moral de la democracia en K.-O. Apel

Domingo García-Marzá
{"title":"Contra el nuevo revisionismo democrático: el alcance del valor moral de la democracia en K.-O. Apel","authors":"Domingo García-Marzá","doi":"10.5007/1677-2954.2020v19n3p568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current democracy decline, the systematic non-fulfillment of the expectations of equality, inclusion and participation, is undermining the credibility and trust of the set of institutions that make up the democratic system. The revisionist current of democracy gives a good account of this new scenario where democracy is neither the only nor the best answer to how to organize our life in common, to http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2020v19n3p568 569 GARCÍA-MARZÁ, D. Contra el nuevo revisionismo democrático ethic@, Florianópolis, v. 19, n. 3, 568-591. Dez. 2020 achieve a collective formation of the will. In this context, democracy runs the risk of blurring its legitimacy under concepts such as illiberal democracy or algorithmic democracy. The expansion of populism, digital technologies and a new vindication of expertocracies, make up a not reassuring horizon. It is necessary to rethink democracy and justify a critical perspective that allows us to morally base the values that give it meaning. For this purpose, we need to recover the intrinsic value of democracy, its moral value. And it is in this reflection where it is important to use some ideas of K.O. Apel. They have to do with his justification of the moral value of democracy and the scope of an ethic of democracy. Throughout his works, Apel insisted on the need to establish a criterion of moral validity, a discursive or communicative ethics, capable of explaining the legitimacy of the expectations generated by democracy, but also the possibility of normative criteria for the application of the moral requirement of reciprocal recognition, a realization that considers the history and the particular situation, the plural, complex and global contexts in which we live. Both moments allow a critical perspective capable of arguing against the current revisionism and justifying the ethical bases that underlie our trust in democracy and its institutions.","PeriodicalId":143268,"journal":{"name":"Ethic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2020v19n3p568","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The current democracy decline, the systematic non-fulfillment of the expectations of equality, inclusion and participation, is undermining the credibility and trust of the set of institutions that make up the democratic system. The revisionist current of democracy gives a good account of this new scenario where democracy is neither the only nor the best answer to how to organize our life in common, to http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2020v19n3p568 569 GARCÍA-MARZÁ, D. Contra el nuevo revisionismo democrático ethic@, Florianópolis, v. 19, n. 3, 568-591. Dez. 2020 achieve a collective formation of the will. In this context, democracy runs the risk of blurring its legitimacy under concepts such as illiberal democracy or algorithmic democracy. The expansion of populism, digital technologies and a new vindication of expertocracies, make up a not reassuring horizon. It is necessary to rethink democracy and justify a critical perspective that allows us to morally base the values that give it meaning. For this purpose, we need to recover the intrinsic value of democracy, its moral value. And it is in this reflection where it is important to use some ideas of K.O. Apel. They have to do with his justification of the moral value of democracy and the scope of an ethic of democracy. Throughout his works, Apel insisted on the need to establish a criterion of moral validity, a discursive or communicative ethics, capable of explaining the legitimacy of the expectations generated by democracy, but also the possibility of normative criteria for the application of the moral requirement of reciprocal recognition, a realization that considers the history and the particular situation, the plural, complex and global contexts in which we live. Both moments allow a critical perspective capable of arguing against the current revisionism and justifying the ethical bases that underlie our trust in democracy and its institutions.
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
反对新民主修正主义:k - o民主道德价值的范围。它
当前民主的衰落,对平等、包容和参与的期望系统性地无法实现,正在破坏构成民主制度的一系列机构的信誉和信任。民主的修正主义潮流很好地解释了这种新的情况,即民主既不是唯一的也不是最好的答案,如何组织我们共同的生活,http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2020v19n3p568 569 GARCÍA-MARZÁ, D. Contra el nuevo revisionismo democrático伦理学@,Florianópolis, v. 19, n. 3,568 -591。实现2020年集体形成的意志。在这种背景下,民主面临着在非自由民主或算法民主等概念下模糊其合法性的风险。民粹主义、数字技术的扩张,以及对专家统治的新辩护,构成了一个令人不安的前景。有必要重新思考民主,并证明一种批判性的观点是正确的,这种观点使我们能够以道德为基础,赋予民主意义。为此,我们需要恢复民主主义的内在价值,它的道德价值。正是在这种反思中,运用K.O.阿佩尔的一些思想是很重要的。它们与他对民主的道德价值和民主伦理的范围的论证有关。在他的作品中,阿佩尔坚持需要建立一种道德有效性的标准,一种话语或沟通的伦理,能够解释民主产生的期望的合法性,但也有规范性标准的可能性,用于相互承认的道德要求的应用,一种考虑历史和特殊情况的实现,我们生活的多元,复杂和全球背景。这两个时刻都提供了一种批判的视角,能够反对当前的修正主义,并为我们对民主及其制度的信任所依据的道德基础辩护。
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
Por que interpretar a teoria ética de Mill como um tipo de utilitarismo de atos The neuroethics of agency: the problem of attributing mental states to people with disorders of consciousness The role of nature in the self-ownership proviso Os novos desafios da ética da neurociência
×
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