Karalynn Schneck:The Flyvbjerg Mess

Trudging through the complexities of Flyvbjerg and the whole discussion on ethical discourse was like trying to find marbles in mud for me. I agree with Shelly that this whole discussion could have been summarized and posited in good-old fashioned English, instead of the annoyingly overworked mess of academic English. The style turned me off intensely.

But back to the subject at hand. It appears that Habermas’ five requirements for ethical discourse stem from the basics: equality, inclusion, and leaving all prejudices at the door. I could directly quote them, but it would be a waste of time, since we have probably all exhausted the requirements as a class.

Flyvbjerg’s problem with Habermas’ theory of communicative action and these five requirements for ethical discourse is that they are rather idealistic and not empirically proven or practiced. He seems to turn to people like Machiavelli and Foucault for alternative methods for understanding actual political behavior. I prefer the idealistic tendencies of Habermas, despite their loftiness—I think that all it boils down to is the necessity of practice. Habermas’ theories may not have ground in the real world, but they could and should be practiced nevertheless. In much the same way that parents seek to rear their children with positive reinforcements and grand ideals, reality should not prevent experienced adults from learning a lesson from children: humility and the willingness to learn something ridiculously difficult. These are just my ideas, but I would much rather live with this positive, idealistic philosophy than some witty, snide, hiply cynical trend that shoots down methods before they are evn put into practice.