What can rhetoric tell us about good arguments? The answer depends on what we mean by “good argument” and on how we conceive rhetoric. In this article I examine and further develop Jürgen Habermas’s argumentation theory as an answer to the question—or as I explain, an expanded version of that question. Habermas places his theory in the family of normative approaches that recognize (at least) three evaluative perspectives on all argument making: logic, dialectic, and rhetoric, which proponents loosely align with (...) the three dimensions of product, procedure, and process, respectively (cf. Wenzel 1990; Tindale 1999). Habermas wants to integrate these perspectives in a conception of cogent argumentation that dispels .. (shrink)

Modern society is challenged by a loss of efficiency in national governance systems values, and lifestyles. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) discourse builds upon a conception of organizational legitimacy that does not appropriately reflect these changes. The problems arise from the a-political role of the corporation in the concepts of cognitive and pragmatic legitimacy, which are based on compliance to national law and on relatively homogeneous and stable societal expectations on the one hand and widely accepted rhetoric assuming that all members (...) of society benefit from capitalist production on the other. We therefore propose a fundamental shift to moral legitimacy, from an output and power oriented approach to an input related and discursive concept of legitimacy. This shift creates a new basis of legitimacy and involves organizations in processes of active justification vis-à-vis society rather than simply responding to the demands of powerful groups. We consider this a step towards the politicization of the corporation and attempt to re-embed the debate on corporate legitimacy into its broader context of political theory, while reflecting the recent turn from a liberal to a deliberative concept of democracy. (shrink)

This article presents a normative‐theoretical account of democratic legitimacy that meets the challenge of moral and cultural pluralism in a way that takes the avoidance of oppression and violence to be a fundamental imperative. The discourse‐theoretical perspective of jürgen Habermas reveals that reasoned agreement among citizens is the only alternative to political oppression. Pace Habermas, however, the legitimacy of even basic constitutional principles does not require us to agree with one another for the same reasons. While we can affirm such (...) principles for a wide range of different reasons, the process of achieving reasoned agreements on contentious issues draws us together as citizens in loyalty to a particular, historical set of political institutions. The reasoned commitment to our constitution that we come to share in this ongoing process acts as an identity‐forming bond that allows us to live in peace with deep moral and cultural differences. (shrink)

En 1992 Charles Taylor escribiá un libra titulado Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition. Dos anos más tarde la misma editorial, Princeton University Press, publicá una reedicián. Se afiadía una leve variante en el título, la palavra examining: Multiculturalism. Examining the politics of recognition. La novedad de esta edicián fue que se afiadieran dos nuevos ensayos, uno de Jürgen Habermas, titulado Stmggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional State y el otro por K. Anthony Appiah, afraamericano, con lo que se (...) afiade al libra una nota de color, en ese reclamo del recõnocimiento de la identidad. (shrink)

O objetivo do presente artigo é analisar em que medida o conceito de ação comunicativa fraca permite que a teoria habermasiana incorpore a possibilidade não apenas de uma mistura entre orientação para o sucesso e orientação para o entendimento, mas uma mistura em que tais orientações são tomadas como aspectos contrários mas dialeticamente interdependentes de certos atos de fala. Em última instância, trata-se de avaliar em que medida esta compreensão mais dialética da relação entre as duas orientações torna a teoria (...) habermasiana menos ingênua e mais sensível à complexidade da prática comunicativa da sociedade contemporânea. Para realizar nosso objetivo, propomos uma conexão conceitual entre a ação comunicativa fraca e, por outro lado, a tensão entre facticidade e validade atuante no âmbito das normas jurídicas. (shrink)