Habermas Political Philosophy - Essay Example

What is dis ethics Dis ethics, also knows as argumentative ethics, is a type of argument that is needed to set up normative and/or ethical facts through the dissection of the presuppositions of discourse. There are two major school of thought in this line, i.e. both from German philosophers. One is Jurgen Habermas and the other is Karl-Otto Apel. These great philosopher have been attributed with the laurels of inventing the modern discourse ethics theory Jurger Habermas has thrown up the theory of discourse ethics with main pillars of thought (i) it is fundamental principle is based on the need to participate in argumentation for testing the soundness of any given norm, and (ii) it changes the categorical imperative of Kant to a collective imperative through remodeling it in order to ascertain the materialization of a general will as well by bringing it to the level of argumentation. The first part differentiates the Habermas' theory from that of John Rawl (moral theory) and the second one differentiates it from Kant's moral theory. It also puts it aside from John Rawls theory of justice. The Habermas' discourse ethics theory ensures with guarantee that the judgment process involved in any decision making is impartially carried out. This contracts the other theories such as John Rawl's where same theory says that making a moral judgment would be based on the orientation of an individual. Habermas' discourse ethics theory also guarantees the interpretation of the universalistic principle as the expression of normative content of any given procedure, and definitely not the normative content of the argument. There is no inclusion or space for substantive moral content in the Habermas' theory. The Habaermas discourse ethics theory attempts to elucidate the inference of communicative rationality in the light of moral basics and normative validation. This is an extremely intricate effort for theoretically formulating the fundamentals given by Kant's deontological ethics particularly in terms of break-up of communicative structures. In other words it attempts to explain the universal nature as well as the obligatory nature of morality through inducing the universal obligation of communicative rationality. Habermas implies that the validity of the norms of morality is not justifiable in the mind of an individual and on his/her impression of the world. Rather the norm's validity is totally dependent and possible when the process is subjected to argumentation among individuals; hence it is rather dialectic. In this manner the theory states that the "validity of a claim to normative rightness depends upon the mutual understanding achieved by individuals in an argument" (Habermas 1990). Habermas has from the above arguments deducted that the world's moral principles are the result of validity claims through discursive justifications which have been imposed upon individuals by the presupposition of communication and argumentation. Some examples can be: The presupposition that there is no argument which is relevant that is excluded by the individuals involved in the discourse The presuppositions that that all the individuals that participate use the same manner of expression (linguistic and cultural) in the communicative exchange The presupposition that all the individuals who participate are truly motivated by a common concern for the best argument Besides the above, there are special and specific presuppositions that are unique to discourse: The presupposition that all the individuals should be agreeable on the universal validity of the claim in general The presupposition that each and every individual is fully capable to speak and act in a rational manner so as to make them eligible to participate; it also presupposes that all are equal to open new topics and introduce them into the discourse whether it is as an expression of attitude or desire or needs The presupposition that none of the validity claims are exempt from group's critical evaluation and argumentation in that regard In short the above fully cover the Habermas' discourse ethics theory. The theory actually singles out the ideal moral point of view which usually is attached to the rational process of argumentation in an ideal manner, which would make the above presuppositions true. The crux of this theory is that all the presuppositions of communication and argumentation are both normative and factual in Habermas' rational reconstruction. He clearly has tried to close the gap between the 'what is' and 'what ought to be'. He describes the exchange of perspective and roles as well as mutual recognition which are required (rather demanded) by the rational argumentation through its very structural condition. He explains that the inherent quality of these presuppositions of communication is actually a deep sense of moral values and norms - which are actually what the conditions for any valid norm should be. The presuppositions in other words, convey a universal obligation to preserve totally impartial judgment in the discourse, which in turn makes all the participant individuals accept and adopt the perspectives of each of the members in the face of valid reasons. This is from where Habermas has brought out his principles on universalization and discourse ethics: 'All affected can accept the consequences, and the side effects general observance can be anticipated to have for the satisfaction of everyone's interests (Habermas, 1990)' This can be considered as the base of all acceptable moral norms. However, the principle of discourse ethics is separate from this; i.e. this presupposes that there are certain norms which can satisfy or fulfill the specified conditions by the universalization principle: 'Only those norms can claim to be valid that meet with the approval of all affected in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse (Habermas, 1990)' What is the dilemma of reason and relativism In order to go into this we have to look up the Kohlberg's stages of moral development whereby moral reasoning has been explained in a number of stages of development. This theory expresses that the ethical behavior from which moral reasoning is the result, stems from certain development stages that continues throughout one's life span. The stages of moral reasoning are six in total and are found grouped into three main levels of two stages each: Level one - the pre-conventional stage Obedience and punishment orientation: This stage uses the fear of direct consequences of the action the individual does. This does not pay any attention to any difference in the views of the other person. Hence if the deed is morally wrong, it will be punished. This stage is called the authoritarian stage. Self-Interest orientation: This stage takes into consideration the individual's self-interest and does not limit itself to only morally wrong or right behavior. This stage is hence known as morally relative stage. Level two - the conventional stage Inter-personal accord and conformity: Here, the individual self-interest is superimposed by the outside social roles. In this stage the behavior and conformity to the social recognition it gets the individual. Here the upholding of the rules and regulations are effected only in terms of recognition and relationship. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation: Here the society becomes bigger than the individual and the principle of fundamentalism is obvious. In this stage, the belief is that if one crosses the law, so would others and hence no one should. Hence, here the culpability of the individual takes precedence over all other things. Level three - the post-conventional stage Social contract orientation: Here it is has been observed that people will respect the fact that other may have different perspective and opinions. In this stage the choices made by each individual is not judged as correct or wrong. Here the rules and regulations as well as the law are social guidelines rather than strict dictums. Here is what is called democracy. Universal ethical principles: This stage is the stage where utmost respect is given to justice. Laws are to be respected as long as they are committed to justice. The obligation to accept or follow an unjust law is not more there. In this stage each decision of an individual is seen in the context it is taken rather than an idealistic and excluded right-wrong axis. In other words the person or society judging the individual will try to see how it would be from the other person's view. The above are the six stages of the moral dilemma of reason. These are backed by the theoretical assumptions of the Kohlberg which include the view: That the human nature consists of certain basic understanding of form as well as the content of moral reasoning That the concept of right, as well as the scope of moral reasoning across the society at large, plus the relationship between the world and morality; between logical expression and morality; and lastly between the role of reason and the morality That both the mental and social processes are duly involved in moral reasoning. Kohlberg points out that the human beings are in reality capable of reason and highly communicative; they also have a deep desire to see the others' point of view as well as the world around themselves. The levels and stages of the Kohlberg's theory refers to the relativity and the quality of moral reasoning which normally people adopt which incidentally does not translate directly into blaming or praising of the critical actions of an individual. This theory argues clearly that the form and structure of moral arguments are definitely different and separate from the content of the arguments. This is termed in Kohlberg's theory as formalism. In the same manner, justice is directly dependent upon the fact that there exists a sound reasoning principle. Though it is justice centered morality theory, the Kohlberg theory is found highly compatible with the contents of deontology and eudemonia. This theory implies that as a person reaches or progresses to a higher level (stage), he/she cannot skip stages; they have to go through each one of them. This is true in all the cases; the exception being when the person encounters a moral dilemma. Then the individual will look not at his level, but the next level for solutions. In other words the progress from one stage to the other is triggered by the realization that the present level is no more sufficient to relate with the world and other individuals. There a number of critical reviews of the Kohlberg's theory of moral dilemma. The most important one is that it always rotates around the axis of justice and excludes most other values. Hence, it may not be always applicable to situations where the arguments of people are based on other values and moral aspects in their actions. Carol Gillian on the other hand, while criticizing the Kohlberg theory as androcentric, developed another alternative which is centered on the ethics of caring. This shows that the theories on moral development are not necessarily required to be focuses only on justice as the sole value and measurement. Other theories and schools of thought have thrown up a number of ideas which have actually questioned the action that is backed only with formal reasoning. Many argue that people many times make judgments excluding factors such as law, fairness, ethical values or human rights. This actually points to the fact that moral reasoning is much lesser relevant or connected to moral action as it is believed. Does the discourse ethics address the dilemma of reason and relativism A lot has been sought and discussed on this matter. Does indeed the discourse ethics address the dilemma of reason and relativism Let us consider for the same of the argument that this theory is subjectivist and hence the behavior of the individual would be determined by the approach or attitude of some other individual or group of individuals who is/are similar to the subject, his/her society and some ideal being (such as God). Ordinarily this subjectivism, ideal observer theory, cultural relativism and the divine order/command theory all are indeed diverse types of subjectivism. Having this as a background this would be an interesting dilemma: For the sake of being more simple in explaining this case, let us suppose that the view is according to the pertinent group in the individual's society. The view represents societal subjectivism - here by societal subjectivism we understand the behavior or act in the belief that it is morally right is that way if it not forbidden by the code of morality in that same society in which the individual commits the act at the time of the act. As a definition the moral codes and norms of that society are those which are accepted by that society. This is what makes up for the normative status of an act or type of act. For example, some simply defined norms would be, "Stealing is wrong", or "Cheating others is wrong" or "Euthanasia is good" and so on. However, the actual norms do not really exist in real life; these norms get more complex when applied to real life scenarios and they become, "Killing is wrong, unless you are fighting for your country", "Lying is bad, unless it is done for a higher purpose such as saving someone's life", "A doctor should not kill a patient, unless he is suffering from a very painful terminal disease which has no hope for cure, and by which the patient will actually be better off" and so on. Hence, to accept a norm usually implies that the individual totally agrees with it, and he/she is inclined to behave according to its dictates; at the same the same individual will shun those who do not comply to the acceptable norm. It is understood that this nom is the unwritten code, and not a law which is recorded black and white or something similar. It is rather predetermined by the over attitudes and disposition of that society as a whole. It would be quite impossible to exactly define a norm and its acceptability within a society. This is because it is an unwritten, feeling, norm which is constantly fluid at the outset in the perimeters. The dilemma would be clear here - either the theory limits the definition of the moral code to only certain critical and essential norms, or it does not. In either case the result will be directed to implausible and difficult consequences. What is a basic moral norm A basic moral norm is that which exists in a society as a base and it is not a derivative of any other different norm. For example, "Lying is wrong" might be a derivative from "When you give your word you ought to keep it, unless your not doing so would save someone's life". Though it looks complex, the latter is the basic norm. Comparatively, "It is wrong to allow your pet dogs to poop on the lawn of your neighbor and not cleaning afterwards" can be described as non-basic. Keeping the above in mind, let us look at our dilemma again. Let us find out why it is not plausible to actually confine the theory to basic moral norms. This is basically because in that case the theory would generate totally impossible-to-happen results in terms of moral reasoning. Let us take something simple, like whether you should clean your house everyday, or see television on weekends, etc. If these theories are not limited so as to include non-basic norms in the code, this very moral code would have to contain different norms for each and every activity. Based on this presumption, you would not be able to know whether it is okay to see TV on the weekend using the basic norms. Instead, you would need to really find out through a vote or poll whether this is correct or not. And you would have to do so for each and every activity you want to do. Definitely this is not the way anyone would be able to live and act as a sane person. This is where it is deducted that we would need to get the reasoning done based on some very basic principles. Only when it comes to questioning the fiber of these basic principles, it will be possible on subjective society to get the overall and collective judgment about that very principle. Some will argue that this very theory is objectionable, but it is definitely better than having to vote or take a poll for each every action that you want to do so as to confirm to the basic moral code in your society. This is crystal clear when you look at more personal aspects of behavior as compared to the societal behavior or subjectivism. When it comes to personal subjectivism whatever one would feel about seeing TV on the weekend would be assumed to be correct. And this is indeed against the common practice because the reason comes from the few basic principles we follow in our lives vis--vis the society. It is easier and more plausible to assume that the basic moral norms are actually on a more personal level than to seek the answer of each and every issue (moral) in that person. You can see clearly why it is not plausible to confine the theory to basic moral norms. Let us assume that a few people in a society start believing certain aspects of societal subjectivism plus restrictions on basic moral norms. In other words, in a subjective society a behavior or act is considered as morally right only if it is not strictly and expressly forbidden by that society's moral norms. Suppose these new believers are able to convince the rest of their fellow members about the validity of their beliefs through discourse and assuming that they are successful, now in that society everybody will be following that subjectivity. Now obviously all the moral obligations that would apply to their lives would have to be derivatives of that new belief (subjectivism). But what actually happens in the truth Suppose that now the new belief is the basic norm and the overall view comes to the thought you should do what the society dictates you to do and in turn what the society dictates you should do. Then, when everybody accepts this view it is totally reduced to nihilism - specifically because now all the people believe in the same view. In this case, the confined or restricted subjectivism forms will result into nihilism when all the members in a society (group) come to accept that theory. This of course looks as implausible as any other consequence discussed for any theory and one that would not really gain any acceptance. Hence, this theory is self-defeating. The fact is that people are not likely to go against a theory if they agree to it; rather if that whole group agrees and internalizes it then the concept becomes that anything is acceptable. This applies similarly to the ideal observer (such as God) who can never do anything wrong. For example, God can give a lot of people real hurts, but He cannot be believed that He does that for fun. How does this apply to contemporary American politics Foulcault ethical discourse: Foulcault is famous specially for his works on different social institutions, especially psychiatry, prison systems and sexuality. The work regarding power and the relationship that exists between power and knowledge as well as his theories on discourse have been widely published, discussed and criticized. Most of Foulcault's work can be defined as post-modernist and/or post-structuralist; however over time Faulcault himself became disassociated from this approach and changed his direction towards the modernity theory. The work of Foulcoult has been primarily criticized be leading philosophers and free-thinkers because he seemed to reject the enlightenment philosophy while at the same basing all his major works on the principle. This is why his theories were considered as totally nihilistic or not really firm enough to be taken seriously in terms of normative values while all the while his theories and works based all the assumptions on this very fact. Foulcoult unlike Habermas was seen as misinterpreting facts or totally inventing facts which were even of historical base. Habermas on the other hand tried to apply his theory of ethical discourse directly upon realistic situations both in present and in the past. He actually tried to prove in his works that reason by itself is the only means for guaranteeing the reality (truth) and the viability of ethical systems. Hence, his aim was to critique reason itself and not the notions and/or norms of reality and truth as other lent to believe. Inspite of the acute criticism on his historical works, historians themselves have been found to take note of Foulcoult's works to note specific historical problems that had been overlooked previous to his works. Agamben and the theory of discourse: The theory of discourse propagated by Agamben is actually rooted deep in Michael Foucoult's works. Foulcoult theorises again in his renowned work, Discipline and Punish (1975) the Nietzsche's power concept stating that even while power is not really present, it still is the basic principle on which a society functions, whether this is the Government, the nations around each other, or any other group in a society - they all regulate each other based on the power principle. For Foulcoult, the world can be described as a containment strategy matrix, where politics of resistance and subjective agency are burdened concepts. This is particularly because subjectivity, especially marginalized subjectivity cannot be considered in this context as the real identity of a person because he would be resisting the false subjection around a hegemonic establishment of power. The politics and anti-marginalization identities itself are actually an integral part of the main episteme - i.e. the monopoly of power. Foucoult's theory of power describe the dominant strategies and technologies of power as making the right intervention in terms of subjectivity as not just a subjugation expression of the person (individual) but its overall performance. In other words, when the individual is driven by power, in reality it needs that power for its very existence and his/her behavior will be dictated by the actual status of subjectivity which renews itself constantly in its own interpretation of the law and the point which the person considers as the ideal identity. Hence, power is actually not before or prior but it is actually co-extensive with the person (subject). Agamben explains Foulcoult's theory of power in the example of the Jews in the concentration camps. In this context, the Jews are seen by the Nazis not as subjects to power (theirs) but rather sub-human (outside the power) and hence needed to be annihilated (not to exist). Here, it is clear that power has an outer limit from where the definition of what counts and what does not is dictated. The power concept is clearly visible in many application in American politics. Like for example the situation is Abu Ghraib where Iraqis were dehumanized by Americans - the Americans who otherwise are proud to uphold the rights of any citizen - even the worst criminal has rights in the USA - this is because the subject has crossed the outer limit described in the theories of Foulcoult and Agamben. In the same lines if the same picture is seen from the point of view of Habermas, it will be easy to see how 'only those norms can claim to be valid that meet with the approval of all affected in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse (Habermas, 1990)'. Here the Americans had decided and accepted through ethical discourse that the Iraqis had no rights in view of the atrocities that their race would have committed against other races. Hence, they were pushed into the stage where reasoning condoned going against the derivative basic norm, "It is wrong to violate the human rights of any human being", the basic norm of which would be "It is wrong to violate the violate the rights of any human being, unless the human being in question has violated the rights of other human beings." There are other such examples where Habermas theory of ethical discourse has been applied to todays state of affairs in USA. The stand that the President Bush has taken against the Afghanistan has pointed to the fact America does not need to enter any ethical discourse on peace or war because they have no equals. In order to enter into a ethical discourse, as per Habermas theory, a group of individuals needs to be equals, need to speak the same language (in mind and action) and need to be able to exchange each other position to see the other's point of view. The war was a result of a break up of that equation; and today's position of America positively aggressive and dictating terms to all nations is because USA has reached a point where it has no equal and hence no basic moral norm can be worked out or reached at even if the United Nations are mediating. In the same lines you can explain the political position of America in terms of Foulcoult's theory which says that everything actually revolves upon the principle of power. It is clearly the basics of power that makes the USA the dominant entity whereby this nation can enter another nation's territory and influence its own machinery and change everything according to their belief of what is good and what is wrong. This is the principle that shows and proves without any doubt that for a norm to become a basic standard or moral norm, the group has to be able to discourse in the first place. There is no way that Afghanistan could ever enter into dialogue with America and bargain or ask for different approach to tackle their internal problem. They were not even equipped to stop them because they were totally subjective to their power. There are also other examples in American politics which prove loud and clear the applicability of both Habermas and Foulcoult's theories, though both are looking at the same point from different angles. The other examples could be the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring Japan to its knees; the Gulf War where America intervened to moderate the oil problem and emerged as the winner in getting the best bargain out of the deal; America's stand and role in the disarmament particularly with regard to the nuclear bombs which can annihilate the world where America takes a stand against any other nation building its own nuclear arsenal while America itself is leading in this aspect. There are other aspects such as America's stand against terrorism post September 11th horror story. In the same which America justified "going after the terrorists" and proceeded with strategic attack against Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladden, the US should go after the terrorists that attack Kashmir in India and interfere in the Croetian civil war and the Palestinian wars and so on. If they adopt the social moral norm that terrorism will not be tolerated, how can it be tolerated elsewhere when it cannot be so within USA Millions die elsewhere as a direct result of terrorism but USA does not "go after the terrorist" each time there is a bomb blast and innocents die. This is what Habermas was trying to portray while saying that unless the group is homogenic and have equal footing, the ethical discourse will not be balanced and the rules ensuing will not be fair to all the members of the group; but rather have lopsided approach with a heavy tilt for those who can discourse from an upper level of bargain. The same principle can be proved with the theory of Foulcoult and Agamben. When power is tilted on one side the other side is dominated and has to accept what the power decides. They become subjective. That also becomes the overall standard moral norm, even if it is lopsided just as the ideal observer who can do not wrong. In this picture USA has taken the ideal observer position and from its point of view can indeed do no wrong. The same moral ethics has been internalized by the other countries though not totally internalized. Conclusion 2 In conclusion it can be said that the theory of ethical discourse and its influence in the society as per Habermas if the group is not homogenic a balance cannot be obtained, neither you can hope of having an equitable solution because the leading group will definitely overpower in the discourse and manage to convince the lesser members in the group. The ethical moral norms that result from such a discourse are definitely likely to be lopsided since these will be tilted towards the more influential members of the group. The most pressing problem is the minimized capacity of the world to act in unision against any monopoly of force. This is because it is more supportive of the monopoly than the actual ethical moral norm - and as Habermas explained, 'All affected can accept the consequences, and the side effects general observance can be anticipated to have for the satisfaction of everyone's interests (Habermas, 1990)'. However this is valid only when the group is based on equal footing and can discourse freely in the circumstances which allow interchanging of positions to be able to change their own perspective with that of others. There are other examples such as the EU (European Union) goes against the national law, while at the same time that nation still is in full power to govern itself and its legal framework. The United Nations which is a body constituted specifically to balance the imbalances that occur globally is a weak institution which is languishing for lack of funds as well as its high reliance upon other governments that are in turn guarding their own interests. In the same manner when the USA declared war there was a hue and cry from all the world citizens; but there was silence from the nations. The nations were not able to directly oppose the position that USA took for lack of capacity in terms of power to discourse on the same footing with it. The United Nations had initially vetoed the war declaration; it later joined in the fringes by helping the war victims. Had United Nations had the power they would have forced the USA to stop the war. However, no other power or nation or institution is today on part with America. While the common citizens vociferously went to the streets against the war, the USA head still went ahead with the war. Here the clarity of the Habermas theory is exceptionally strong - i.e. the leading moral norms will be only that of the leading group independent of what exactly is right or wrong. The leader concept is the group's concept. The same point can be proved from Foulcoult's theory where he says that when the power principle is applied the highest power will subject the rest of the group and impose their moral and ethical norms on them. Here the individual moral code does not withstand the authority of the powerful leader group and hence the rest of group follow the dictates of the moral norm even if they do not internalize it fully. This had been the case with the Nazis and the Jews as well. Based on the standard human moral ethics human life is precious beyond any scope. However, seen in the context of the leader group, it was okay to exterminate the Jews because they were felt to be lesser mortals than the Aryan descendant Germans. History will throw up many such examples - the Turks converting or killing those who did not want to convert; Christians who went on holy war to exterminate those who killed Jesus (Jews); Muslim slaying Hindus and vice-versa in the name of religious principles, and so on and so forth. Each of these examples show how the leader group can influence the change of a standard basic ethical norm into a distorted one which will be sustained by the group though basically not totally internalized, but nonetheless totally followed to the letter T. The Habermas theory has been proved again and again in all the above examples in the historical past, as well as the contemporary American politics. It shows that there s actually not standard ethical moral norm to be followed by any given group. Rather, the leading moral and ethical norm is actually based upon the dictated of the most powerful group or leading group and the rest of the group and participants accept the new moral ethos though not always internalizing the same since it clashes with the personal moral ethos of the individual. Nonetheless, till the minority group becomes powerful enough to challenge the leading moral ethical norms, the whole groups in total would accept and agree to it. The imbalance of power always will give a lopsided effect in justice and only when all the participants can take part on equal footing the right ethical moral norm would emerge. This could be seen in example where in America women were prohibited from voting. This was the accepted standard on the national base, while at individual base the Americans were fast to see the potential of women in all fields from politics to literature to engineering and astronomy women excelled. It took the regrouping of women themselves to be able to bargain with the State to be offered the right to vote and when they became powerful enough for their to be heard, they got recognized as a group and their rights were recognized as well. The Habermas theory though opposite in many aspects from the Foulcoult theory and AGamben's theory as well, voice the same principle. It is just put into other words and explained with different repertoires. The outcome as we saw is the same. Simply who yields the stick is right. Power is all predominant and the sense of right and wrong percolates from the beliefs and behavior of that power. Yes, when the deviation of the moral ethical norm is too far from the individual's moral ethical norms there is a regrouping and in the long run the balance is achieved. The imbalance of power will last till the regrouping is complete. The regrouping is always followed by the balancing in the moral ethos of the group. The power principle of Foulcoult is highlighted in each and every example that was mentioned in this essay - with no exception. That goes to show that even though the theory goes on a totally different tangent, basically it implies the same result and follows the same principle of societal justice. This justice is highly influenced by the leading group for a while; however the overall balance will be brought back with the actual re-grouping of the those who are subjected and those who do nor fully internalize the moral ethical norm which was handed over. For example, it took long time for the Jews to really revolt against the Nazi, and when they did it was met with disaster; but when the Allied Forces intervened, the picture changed. The same Nazis who were at one time proudly maintaining that they were the highest race in the world, went into hiding. This was because one power was toppled by another. The Allied Forces actually became as powerful because of the acute imbalance created by the moral ethical norms that the Nazis had handed down to the world, as the leaders of the pack. The world followed initially because they could not actually win in a equal discourse but then they regrouped based on the fact the new moral ethical norms totally clashed with the individual moral ethical norms. And hence at the individual level the people were not happy with the way things were moving. Their internal protest found interpretation through the Allied Forces when these rose against the Nazis and their wrong ethics. In other words life has its actual very basic moral base and all humanity follows it more or less. In a society due to power imbalances that occur from time to time, these basic ethical moral norms get distorted or violated. This movement from ideal to non-ideal is always based on the flow of power from the power haves to the power have nots. However the same equation can be reversed the power limit are crossed. This is when at the individual levels the oppressed regroup. And when they do so, they do it with the intention of regaining the balance that was lost with the intervention of the power. Hence, the basic moral norms will always remain the same. It is very rare that conditions are such that globally all the groups will be equal and they develop a standard moral code which is beneficial and acceptable for all. This will rather be likely to happen at a smaller level such a society, a race or a group of individuals. Whenever the power imposes a wrong moral ethical norm, the nature of the human mind does not allow it to stand for long. It will get back into the balanced act as soon as the limits of power are crossed as per the Foulcoult theory. In similar lines, but put differently, there is no right or wrong. Only what is accepted and what is not. What is accepted is dictated by the leading team, or as ideally it should be by a group deciding on equal footing what would be best in the interest of the group to adopt. However, since the ideal conditions are very rarely met, if ever, it remains to be accepted that the leading moral ethos of any time are the result of the moral ethos of the leader. This moral ethos are imbalanced against the minority for the simple fact that they cannot discourse with the leader and cannot bargain for equal rights. Neither can the privileged change places with them and really see the facts from their perspective for which their rights are not considered in full. This is the reason why the minority are more or less always deprived of their rights. The imbalance in societal justice is directly proportional to the difference in the power between the leader and the smaller groups. The stronger the leader, the higher will be the imbalance tilted against the marginalized. However, as per the Habermas theory, the basic fiber or the moral ethical norms will definitely surface when the minority groups join forces against the leaders. The "joining" itself is a proof of Habermas theory, i.e. the people who are oppressed join hand because they can discourse on equal footing, can exchange places and can work towards the common good. It is clear from the above that the discourse ethics can indeed address the dilemma of reason and relativism. Each and every example above has proved that the discourse ethics theory is directly responsible for the redressal. References Habermas, J. 1990, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, MIT Press, Cambridge , Massachusetts . Habermas, J. 1990, Ethics, Politics and History, from an interview conducted by Jean-Marc Ferry in Philosophy and Social Criticism, ed. D. Rasmussen, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Read More