The Foundations and Benefits of Dialogic Consensus
This chapter considers what makes our contemporary era, herein termed post-modern, different from earlier eras, and why we therefore need to move from appeal to a substantive ethical framework, to an active process of moral decision making. Thus, the move is from ego to alterity (otherness) in the notion of dialogic consensus. Dialogic consensus is derived from Jürgen Habermas’ notions of discourse theory of morality and communicative action. Recognition of our inter-connectedness is important for Habermas because of its contribution to normativity, in that it serves as a motivator to act, consequent upon a sense of oughtness or shouldness. His discourse theory of morality requires that the consequences for all persons affected must be considered, while his principles of communicative action imply that the discourse is based upon consensus, subsequent to inclusive, non-coercive and reflective dialogue. Intersubjective consensus after dialogue within the relevant community imbues the decision with normative force that, in turn, renders the process one which is action-guiding. Habermas’ discourse theory of morality generalises and expands the Kantian categorical imperative, as determined by ethical monologue, to a wider consensus-seeking dialogue. Thus, consensual agreement is reached about what constitutes morally-correct action. Relocating decision making from a monological space, into one characterised by dialogue within the stakeholder community, is especially appropriate to the clinical encounter. This form of moral decision making is at the heart of the notion of dialogic consensus.
KeywordsCommunicative action Consensus Dialogue Discourse Dialogic consensus Discourse morality Jürgen habermas Moral pluralism Post-modernity Value pluralism
- Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. 2011. National safety and quality health services standards. In Australian commission on safety and quality in health care (ed.). Sydney.Google Scholar
- Crowder, G. 2003. Pluralism, relativism and liberalism in Isaiah Berlin. In Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, University of Tasmania, 29 Sep–1 Oct 2003.Google Scholar
- Dworkin, R. 2011. Justice for hedgehogs, 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.Google Scholar
- Flyvbjerg, B. 2000. Ideal theory, real rationality: Habermas versus Foucault and Nietzsche. In Political Studies Association’s 50th Annual Conference: The Challenges for Democracy in the 21st Century, London School of Economics and Political Science, 10–13 April 2000. London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
- Forst, R. 2014. Ethics and morals (J. Flynn, Trans., The right to justification: Elements of a constructive theory of justice). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Griffioen, S., and R. Van Woudenberg. 1990. We must not forget those who are absent: Interview with Karl-Otto Apel on the universality of ethics. In What right does ethics have?: Public philosophy in a pluralistic culture, ed. S. Griffioen. Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. 1972. Knowledge and human interests (J.J. Shapiro, Trans.). London: Heinemann Educational.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. 1996. Between facts and norms (W. Rehg, Trans., Studies in contemporary German social thought). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. 2001a. Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics (C. Cronin, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. 2001b. On the pragmatics of social interaction: Preliminary studies in the theory of communicative action (B. Fultner, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
- Jones, I.R. 2001. Health care decision making and the politics of health. In Habermas, critical theory, and health, ed. G. Scambler, 68–85. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Kerridge, I., M. Lowe, and C. Stewart. 2013. Ethics and law for the health professions, 4th ed. Sydney: The Federation Press.Google Scholar
- Levinas, E. 1999. Alterity and transcendence (M.B. Smith, Trans., European perspectives). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- McDougall, R.J., and L. Gillam. 2014. Doctors’ “judgements” and parents’ “wishes”: Clinical implications in conflict situations. Medical Journal of Australia 200 (7). doi: 10.5694/mja13.11326.
- Outhwaite, W. 1994. Habermas: A critical introduction (Key contemporary thinkers). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Scambler, G. 2001. Introduction: Unfolding themes of an incomplete project. In Habermas, critical theory, and health, ed. G. Scambler, 1–24. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- UNESCO. 2007. Philosophy: A school of freedom (Teaching philosophy and learning to philosophize. status and prospects). In ed. Moufida Goucha, Feriel Ait-ouyahia, Arnaud Drouet, and K. Balalovska. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.Google Scholar
- Walker, P., and T. Lovat. 2017. Dialogic consensus in medicine—A justification claim. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy (In Press).Google Scholar
- White, S.K. 1991. Political theory and postmodernism (Modern European philosophy). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Wilkinson, D., R. Truog, and J. Savulescu. 2015. In favour of medical dissensus: Why we should agree to disagree about end-of-life decisions. Bioethics. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12162 (EPub ahead of print April 23).