Moral claims,
Habermas believes, are binding and valid for everyone when they meet the conditions of the grand "Principle U": "All affected can accept the consequences and the side effects its general observance can be anticipated to have for the satisfaction of everyone's interests (and these consequences are preferred to those of known alternative possibilities for regulation)." So, in a way, Habermas wants us to imagine everyone in the world at a table engaging in communicative action such that at some point all of the people come to a consensus on the moral norm at hand. The question is, how is Habermas going to ensure that it is possible for us all to reach a consensus concerning moral norms?
We will never agree.
The thing is, what do we do about the fact that the camera keeps oscillating between focus on the present at hand and the abstract forms in the distance
in which
the world unifies
in theory
with theory
beneath
the world divides
in practice
with practice
