The rules of the rationality of practical discourse in the light of ethics of discourse: An analysis of Robert Alexy’s proposal

Open access


The author discusses the rational argumentation of the values from a proposal defended by the legal philosopher Robert Alexy. The paper shows that discourse for Alexy is essentially a regulated activity. A model of certain rules ensure the rationality and correctness of practical discourse oriented towards resolving conflicts of value. Firstly, the types of rules responsible for the rationality of practical argumentation are described. Secondly, some open problems relating to the claim to correctness of reasoned practical discourse are posed, namely problems derived from the idea of consensus and that of a single correct answer to certain practical issues that include conflicts of values and raise basic disagreements.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • ALEXY R. (1989): Teoría de la Argumentación Jurídica [Theory of legal argumentation] translated by Manuel Atienza and Isabel Espejo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.

  • ALEXY R. (1999): The special case thesis. In: Ratio Juris. An international journal of jurisprudence and philosophy of law 12(4) pp. 374–384.

  • ALEXY R. (2014): Constitutional rights and proportionality. In: Revus: journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law 22 pp. 51–65.

  • ÁLVAREZ S. (2008): Pluralismo Moral y Conflictos de Derechos Fundamentales [Moral pluralism and conflicts of fundamental rights]. In: Doxa. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho 31 pp. 21–54.

  • APEL K. O. (1991): Teoría de la verdad y ética del discurso [Theory of truth and discourse ethics] translated by Norberto Smilg Introduction by Adela Cortina. Barcelona: Paidós.

  • ATIENZA M. (2017): Las razones del Derecho. Teorías de la Argumentación Jurídica [The reasons of law. Theories of legal argumentation] Lima: Palestra.

  • BESSON S. (2005): The morality of conflict: Reasonable disagreement and the law. Oxford: Hart publishing.

  • CHANG R. (1998): Incommensurability incomparability and practical reason. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • ELSTER J. (1998): Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • FETERIS E. (2003): The Rationality of Legal Discourse in Habermas’s Discourse Theory. In: Informal Logic 23(2) pp. 139–159.

  • FETERIS E. (2017): Fundamentals of legal argumentation: A survey of theories on justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • FORST R. (2011): The right to justification: Elements of a constructivist theory of justice translated by Jeffrey Flynn. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • GUTMANN A. & THOMPSON D. (2004): Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • HABERMAS J. (2000): Aclaraciones a la ética del discurso [Clarifications to Discourse Ethics] translated by Manuel Jiménez Redondo. Barcelona: Trotta.

  • JOHNSTON J. S. (2016): Is there a need for transcendental arguments in discourse ethics? In: Educational Theory 66(6) pp. 719–734.

  • KÖLBEL M. (2004): Faultless disagreement. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian society 104(1) pp. 53–73.

  • LARIGUET G. (2008): Dilemas y conflictos trágicos. Una investigación conceptual [Tragic Conflicts and Dilemmas: A Conceptual Enquiry]. Lima: Palestra.

  • LARIGUET G. (2011a): ¡Las normas deben ser acordadas por todos los afectados! Una crítica a la ética del discurso [Norms have to be agreed by all the affected! A critique of the discourse ethics]. In: Universitas. Revista de Filosofía Derecho Política 14(7) pp. 75–89.

  • LARIGUET G. (2011b): Encrucijadas Morales. Una aproximación a los dilemas y su impacto en el razonamiento práctico [Moral crossroads: An approach to dilemmas and their impact on practical reasoning] Prologue by René González de la Vega. Madrid: Plaza y Valdés.

  • MALIANDI R. (2010): Discurso y Convergencia. La ética discursiva de Karl-Otto Apel y el laberinto de los conflictos [Discourse and Convergence: The discourse ethics of Karl-Otto Apel and the labyrinths of conflicts]. Buenos Aires: Oinos.

  • MARTÍ J. L. (2006): La República Deliberativa. Una teoría de la democracia [The Deliberative Republic: A Theory of Democracy]. Madrid: Marcial Pons.

  • WALDRON J. (1999): Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • WOJCIECHOWSKI B. (2010): Discourse ethics as a basis of application of law. In: J. Jemielniak & P. Micklaszewicz (eds.): Interpretation of law in the global world: From particularism to a universal Approach. New York: Springer pp. 53–69.

  • WOLF S. (1992): Two levels of pluralism. In: Ethics 102(4) pp. 785–798.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.35

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.161

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 112 112 16
PDF Downloads 55 55 9