Advertisement

The Foundations and Benefits of Dialogic Consensus

  • Paul Walker
  • Terence Lovat
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Ethics book series (BRIEFSETHIC)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Communicative action Consensus Dialogue Discourse Dialogic consensus Discourse morality Jürgen habermas Moral pluralism Post-modernity Value pluralism 

References

  1. 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
  2. Bertens, H. 1995. The idea of the postmodern: A history. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Candlin, C., Y. Maley, and H. Sutch. 1999. Industrial instability and the discourse of enterprise bargaining. In Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings, ed. S. Sarangi, and C. Roberts, 323–350. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caws, P. 1991. Committees and consensus. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (4): 375–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Doran, E., J. Fleming, C. Jordens, C. Stewart, and I. Kerridge. 2015. Part of the fabric and mostly right: An ethnography of ethics in clinical practice. Medical Journal of Australia 202 (11): 568–590. doi: 10.5694/mja14.00208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dworkin, R. 2011. Justice for hedgehogs, 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.Google Scholar
  8. Fiester, A. 2015. Neglected ends: Clinical ethics consultation and the prospects for closure. The American Journal of Bioethics 15 (1): 29–36. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2014.974770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Habermas, J. 1972. Knowledge and human interests (J.J. Shapiro, Trans.). London: Heinemann Educational.Google Scholar
  13. Habermas, J. 1996. Between facts and norms (W. Rehg, Trans., Studies in contemporary German social thought). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Habermas, J. 2001a. Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics (C. Cronin, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Holm, S., P. Gjersoe, G. Grode, O. Hartling, K.E. Ibsen, and H. Marcussen. 1996. Ethical reasoning in mixed nurse-physician groups. Journal of Medical Ethics 22 (3): 168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jennings, B. 1991. Possibilities of consensus: Towards democratic moral discourse. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (4): 447–463. doi: 10.1093/jmp/16.4.447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Kerridge, I., M. Lowe, and C. Stewart. 2013. Ethics and law for the health professions, 4th ed. Sydney: The Federation Press.Google Scholar
  20. Levinas, E. 1999. Alterity and transcendence (M.B. Smith, Trans., European perspectives). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 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.
  22. Outhwaite, W. 1994. Habermas: A critical introduction (Key contemporary thinkers). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Reichman, N.E., H. Corman, and K. Noonan. 2004. Effects of child health in parents’ relationship status. Demography 41 (2): 569–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Walker, P., and T. Lovat. 2017. Dialogic consensus in medicine—A justification claim. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy (In Press).Google Scholar
  27. Walker, P., and T. Lovat. 2016. Dialogic consensus in clinical decision making. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 13 (4): 571–580. doi: 10.1007/s11673-016-9743-z.Google Scholar
  28. Walker, P., J. Cassey, and S. O’Callaghan. 2005. Management of antenatally detected lesions liable to obstruct the airway at birth—An evolving paradigm. International Journal of Pediatric Otolaryngology 69 (6): 805–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. White, S.K. 1991. Political theory and postmodernism (Modern European philosophy). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. 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).
  31. Wolf, S. 2011. Hiking the range. In On what matters, vol. 2, ed. D. Parfit, 33–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Medicine and Public HealthThe University of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia
  2. 2.School of Humanities and Social ScienceThe University of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia
  3. 3.University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations