Economics Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Morals: morals refers to a more or less coded set of rules, action maxims, duties and prohibitions within a society or group. Most of these rules are unconsciously internalized among the members of the society or group. Their justification and the possible assessment of actions are reflected in ethics and meta ethics. See also values, norms, rights, ethics._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Émile Durkheim on Morals - Dictionary of Arguments
Habermas IV 77 Moral/Durkheim/Habermas: a) Thesis: Moral begins where the attachment to a group of whatever kind begins. (1) Habermas IV 78 b) Mead: Following Kant: a morally acting subject must submit to authority, (...) but in such a way that it itself assumes the obligations and makes the moral demands its own. The individual is not exposed to external force, but to an awe-inspiring authority. MeadVsKant: Mead: traces back the binding force of commitment to force and attraction at the same time. The moral good is also the desirable. It could not be effective as an ideal (...) if it did not promise the satisfaction of real needs. (2) Habermas IV 79 The holy awakens the same ambivalent attitude as moral authority, for the holy is surrounded by an aura that at the same time frightens and attracts, terrorizes and enchants. (3) From this structural analogy Durkheim concludes on a sacral basis of morality. Habermas IV 80 Moral/Durkheim: Thesis: the moral rules ultimately draw their binding force from the sphere of the holy. This explains why they find obedience without being linked to external sanctions. (4) Problem: how can secularized morality last? Certainly it will not last if secularisation has meant a profanation. (See Holiness/Durkheim). For this would make the basic moral phenomenon of the compulsory character disappear, as in all empirical ethics. DurkheimVsSpencer: Spencer's ethics show a complete ignorance of the nature of commitment. For him, the punishment is nothing more than the mechanical consequence of the action. But that means misunderstanding the characteristics of the moral obligation from the bottom up. (5) 1. E. Durkheim, Sociologie et philosophie, Paris 1951, German Frankfurt 1967, p. 86f 2. Ibid p. 96. 3. Ibid p. 86 4. Ibid p. 125 5. Ibid p, 95_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Durkheim I E. Durkheim The Rules of Sociological Method - French: Les Règles de la Méthode Sociologique, Paris 1895 German Edition: Die Regeln der soziologischen Methode Frankfurt/M. 1984 Ha I J. Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988 Ha III Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981 Ha IV Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981 |
||
