Critical social theories look critically at the ways in which particular social arrangements hinder human flourishing, with a view to bringing about social change for the better. In this they are guided by the idea of a good society in which the identified social impediments to human flourishing would once and for all have been removed. The question of how these guiding ideas of the good life can be justified as valid across socio-cultural contexts and historical epochs is the most (...) fundamental difficulty facing critical social theories today. This problem of justification, which can be traced back to certain key shifts in the modern Western social imaginary, calls on contemporary theories to negotiate the tensions between the idea of context-transcendent validity and their own anti-authoritarian impulses. Habermas makes an important contribution towards resolving the problem, but takes a number of wrong turnings. (shrink)

Contrary to widespread assumptions, post-truth politicians formally adopt a rhetoric of ‘truth’ but turn it against established experts. To explain one central factor behind this destructive strategy and its success with voters, I consider Walter Lippmann and Friedrich Hayek, who from 1922 onwards helped develop and popularize a political rhetoric of ‘truth’ in terms of scientific expertise. In Hayek’s influential version, market economics became the crucial expert field. Consequently, the 2008 financial crisis impacted attitudes towards experts more generally. But even (...) sweeping rejection of experts continues to use the rhetoric, by now dominant, of expert truth. Paradoxically, this bipartisan language fuels division as opponents accuse each other of disregarding ‘truth itself’. Against the underlying metaphysics of context-free ‘facts’, John Dewey and Alfred Schutz recommend understanding truth as ‘presumptive’ knowledge produced within human practices, which can be robust but requires a readiness to engage in pluralistic and open-ended processes of (re-)contextualization. (shrink)

Este artículo examina el reciente debate entre J. Habermas y C. Lafont sobre la ética del discurso. Se intenta mostrar que la propuesta de Lafont de interpretar la ética del discurso como una versión del realismo moral se enfrenta a problemas difíciles de resolver dentro del marco teórico de la ética discursiva. El artículo examina en primer lugar cómo la posición de Lafont extiende al terreno de la razón práctica varias objeciones importantes contra la teoría consensual de la verdad. A (...) continuación, se critican los argumentos con que Lafont avala su realismo moral, y se concluye examinando la distinción entre consensos racionales y compromisos de intereses desde una perspectiva estrictamente procedimental. This paper analyses the recent debate between J. Habermas and C. Lafont on discourse ethics. The aim is to show that Lafont's proposal of a realist interpretation of discourse ethics must face several problems which are difficult to resolve from within the theoretical frame of discourse ethics. First of all, the paper sets out how Lafont's position extends to the field of practical reason some important objections against Habermas¿s consensus theory of truth. Subsequently Lafont's arguments in support of moral realism are criticised, and the paper concludes with an analysis of the difference between rational agreements and compromises of interests from a procedural point of view. (shrink)