Jürgen Habermas and World "Peace"


Dean Gotcher

Leviticus 18: 1-30

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.  After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.  The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.  The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.  The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister; for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.  Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.  Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

Matthew 5: 1-45

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Jürgen Habermas and World "Peace"

The Frankfurt School.
Marx's "Feuerbach Thesis number four."
American vs. Un-American activity.
Communication shift equals paradigm shift.
Didactic (patriarchal) paradigm.
The law and the law-giver.
Dialectic (heresiarch) paradigm.
"Negating the negation."
The land of "oughtiness."
Death to the individual−commonkaze.
"Truth"found in the common praxis.

Deviancy in unity.

When one is forced to dialogue with the deviant, deviancy becomes the norm.
When the collective voice controls, the individual and his God given rights are destroyed.

Jürgen Habermas: compelled discourse and reflexive application.
Field of force loses its psychological existence.
Jürgen Habermas: The shift in perspective from God to human beings.
Categorical imperative: a moral obligation or command that is unconditionally and universally binding.
"The law of sin which is in my members"

Warren Bennis and family destruction.
Internet Articles on Jürgen Habermas.

the Frankfurt School

Jürgen Habermas, member of the "Institution of Social Research" (more commonly referred to as the "Frankfurt School"), is considered the most intellectual of its members.  He understood the effects their organization had on this nation and its traditional form of life.  Based upon the synthesis of Marx and Freud these men set out to do a Paradigm Shift of the American culture and they are responsible, more than any other group, for the turmoil of the 60's and the decades since.

Marx's "Feuerbach Thesis number four"

Karl Marx wrote eleven thesis on Feuerbach.  Of the eleven, the last (Feuerbach Thesis #11,) is most often quoted. "The philosophers have interpreted the world in different ways, the objective is to change it."   I believe Feuerbach Thesis #4 has more to say in regards to the American "culture war" than any of the rest. One sentence in the two paragraph statement reads "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the Heavenly Family, the former must be destroyed [annihilated] in theory and practice."    In this short phrase lies the total agenda of social-psychologist's (transformational Marxists.)

American vs. Un-American activity

The Un-American Activity of the 50's was an agenda to negate what what foundational to the formation and identity of this nation, the traditional home with its patriarchal structure.  What was distinctive of the American home was chastening and obedience.  According to Marxist and Freudian theology the traditional home environment was the cause of alienation, reification, and neurosis.  To undue these "social problems," social engineers set out to change the American family structure.  Because of its Biblical roots, the American home was seen as the barrier to be removed if world "peace" (dominance) was to be achieved.  But to carry out a direct assault would mean exposure and disaster for the social engineers.  Environmental changes were therefore the best option.  As Theodore Adorno explained it "Social environmental forces must be used to change the parents behavior toward the child." (The Authoritarian Personality, 1950.)  Tied to an economic system, the agenda was to manipulate social change from a production based society (capitalism) toward a consumer based society (socialism.)  This would not only affect the family-based business but would also affect the traditional American home.

communication shift equals paradigm shift

If you want to understand the change which has taken place over the decades, a study on the change in conversation, or communication is essential.  In the traditional home with a patriarchal language, there is a structure of hierarchy where the Husband rules, the Wife's desires are to the husband, and the children obey the parents in the Lord.  The Language of God is reflected in the language of the traditional home.  A law is given by the parent, "You can not ___.", as a Law is given by God "Thou shalt not ___."  Because a law is often given when a person intends to follow an inclination or desire (a pleasure seen to them as a needs fulfillment,) the law is experienced as a barrier to one's future or purpose in life. The only solution to this dilemma is to get the parent/God (the law giver) to discuss the law with its recipient.  By getting the parent to see the world through the eyes of the child, it is hoped the parent will change their mind (the law.)

didactic (patriarchal) paradigm

The typical response to the negative declaration of "You can not ___." is the word "Why?" or phrase "Why can't I ___?" Without bringing the law-giver into discourse the only choice is to disobey, do what you want to do, and face punishment  or obey, not do what they want you to do, and not be punished. When the authority figure goes into dialogue, as a result of the question "Why?" several events take place; the authority figure is required to defend their law or re-evaluate their law, in light of the new evidence provided by the one under the law, and the one under authority has potential in "actualizing" their desired intents without fear of punishment (rising expectations.)

the law and the law-giver

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6

For the Law giver to maintain the patriarchal office of authority ( a closed, didactic, specific system) the response is often "Because I said so."  From then on the only option is to obey or disobey the authority figure and a condition of antithesis is established (light-dark, blessing-cursing, black-white, etc.)  In the traditional home environment the command (the Law) and the parent (the Lawgiver) are the subject, and not the child's desires. This closed system is based upon contrast, "I am the parent and you are not," and is reflected in property rights  "This is my land and not your land,"  in science "two plus two is four and can not be any other number,"  and in religion "I am God and you are not."  The hierarchy system, when dealing with man, can be stated "I am the parent and you are the child," and when dealing with God carries the very same structure of thought, "I am the Creator and you are the created," etc.

When the parent goes into discourse with the child, in response to the child's "Why?", the law must remain the subject.  This condition is acceptable only if the intent is for the child to understand the law and the desire of the child is to obey the parent with a better understanding of the law.  But their are conditions in which the child is not able at the time to understand the law, or it is not necessary, in the eye's of the parent, for the child to understand the law, or the law is clear enough to understand and the parent choose not to go into discourse and in those times obedience is the only option.  God gives all a measure of faith.  This structure provides the platform for obedience in the home and with God.  In this faith structure, the created can obey the Creator, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding." Proverbs 3:5  But when the discourse with the child's "Why?" turns toward the child's desires and the child becoming the subject, then a shift has been made from a didactic, patriarchal toward a dialectic, heresiarch paradigm. For a better understanding of this shift from the Authority figure, whether it be the God, the parent, the boss, the constitution, etc. being the subject to where mankind, the child, the workers, the constitutions becoming the subject, listen to Phil Worts presentation on the Subject-Object Dichotomy, parts 1, 2.

dialectic (heresiarch) paradigm

the traditional family system must be destroyed, if world peace is to be accomplished

According to Freud this language arrangement, obedience to higher authority and the power used to support it, is the cause of neurosis.  Marx defined this system as the cause of alienation and reification.  Obedience to laws, which are not experienced by the child's own discovery (sense perception) or understood by the child's own reasoning abilities, is seen by Marx as an "opiate," blinding the child from their own thinking and evaluative abilities. "Any time we teach a child something, we keep him from discovering it himself," (Piaget).  The synthesis stage of the dialectic is often referred to as "negation of negation," in other words the parents' restraint is to be circumvented, or to be treated as of no importance.  The system of "Is" plus "Not" is seen by social-engineers (transformational Marxists) as the cause for prejudice, nationalism, and wars.  According to these way of thinking, the traditional family system must be destroyed, if world peace is to be accomplished.  The family must be divided (child against parent) and the family system must be conquered.

family and family-business patricide

Lenin's speech of 1920 was all about the same traditional family structure found in small business.

"[A] more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie [middle class-traditional family system], whose resistance … and whose power lies ... in the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production." "Unfortunately, small-scale production is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale." "... the peasantry constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie—in positively every sphere of activity and life." "... gigantic problems of re-educating ..." "... eradicating their bourgeois habits and traditions...." "... until small-scale economy and small commodity production have entirely disappeared, the bourgeois atmosphere, proprietary habits and petty-bourgeois traditions will hamper proletarian work both outside and within the working-class movement, …" "... in every field of social activity, in all cultural and political spheres without exception." "We must learn how to eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs and traditions everywhere." Vladimir Lenin's Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success May 12, 1920  Emphasis added.

"negating the negation"

The voice of alienation, according to therapy, is found in the "ought."  Abraham Maslow, in his book The Farther Reaches of Human Nature, stated that we must create an environment of "oughtiness"; "We have to study the conditions which maximize ought-perceptiveness."   He wrote: "If we wish to permit the facts to tell us their oughtiness, we must learn to listen to them in a very specific way which can be called Taoistic."  According to social engineers, the lone voice of freedom found in the "ought" is suppressed, and an environment of freedom must be created  to liberate it.  The traditional patriarchal pattern of the home "You can not ___."--"Because I said so." prevents discourse, generated by the child's "Why?", between the child and the parent.  This pushes the child into carrying on a discourse with himself -- "I ought to be able to ___."  The ought is always good in our eyes, therefore it is always positive.  It reflects, in mans imagination, his true purpose to relate with the creation, to find union with the world as it is and, according to the dialectic, it is the liberating essence of mankind. Like a mathematical formula, "ought" can not come into existence without the "Not" and, when "ought" is allowed expression, it always  attacks  the restraining force of the "Not."  The parent can remain the parent, the child the child only as long as they do not "negate the negation" and listen to the voice of  "ought." According to Maslow "Discovering one's real nature is simultaneously an ought quest and an is quest." ibid. 

the land of "oughtiness

Both law and law-giver are overcome in the land of "oughtiness."  In this way the law-giver goes into partnership (consensus) with those under his authority, known as equality of opportunity.  Equality of Opportunity (civic equality) of the Patriarch can be implemented only where the Patriarchal no longer exists.  Equality of Opportunity of the Christian can be implemented only where Christianity no longer exists. Marx wrote that "civil equality of the Jews can be implemented only where Jewry no longer exists",  The Holy Family Chapter VI Absolute Critical Criticism.  In other words the Jew must reject his Biblical history (patriarchal paradigm) if he is to find civil equality, social acceptance, and become at one with the world system (heresiarch paradigm) and its "peace."  A Biblical patriarchal Jew can come to know Jesus Christ as his savior and never leave the patriarchal paradigm, he simply comes to know the Son of the Heavenly father and find true and lasting peace with the Father through Him.

death to the individualcommonkaze
It takes the village to annihilate the individual.

By discovering the ought within himself and the one under his authority, the parent shifts from being first cause to uniting with common cause.  By this act the patriarch kills himself, committing commonkaze, not only by the abdication of his office, but also with his body and soul. It is the discourse which continues underground, which must be given freedom of expression, if the bourgeoisie are to be overcome. Joseph O'Malley, editor of Marx's work Critique of Hegel 'Philosophy of Right,' stated "In short, philosophy as theory finds the ‘ought' implied within the ‘is', and as praxis seeks to make the two coincide." therein destroying the traditional home, business, constitutional republic nation and, conscience based culture.

"truth" found in the common praxis

The language of "behavior science" is the language of theory, the language of "seems to."  As Descartes stated "I think, therefore I Am."  To think is to discourse with oneself, a discourse of will, a discourse of liberation of self from the standards of the past which interfere with the desires of the present.  When expressed in a collective, unified, environment as a common "ought", the experience, the praxis, becomes the moment of truth.  In the dialectic, truth does not lie in the voice of higher authority, set in standards of the past, but in the collective moment of consensus, which can only be achieved by a "discourse-theoretical interpretation" in the here and now.  In that praxis, that experience, that moment in time, both Marx's Feuerbach Thesis #11 (change) and Feuerbach Thesis #4 (the destruction of the traditional-family/business/sovereign rights) are accomplished; alienation and reification are overcome.

deviancy in unity.

When one is forced to dialogue with the deviant, deviancy becomes the 

By forcing the parent to suspend his rules, in other words, to participate in philosophical discourse in the hope of find common ground with the child's point of view, the parent destroys the patriarch system of the American home.  By forcing elected officials, educators, entrepreneurs  to participate in philosophical discourse in the hope of finding common ground with the deviant, the community, parents, customers loose the patriarchal system of traditional American and its Inalienable Rights. Such behavior makes deviancy the norm. The voice of authority and the right to chasten or punish the child for disobedience are both tied up in the "Not" and the "Not-giver" and when the law-giver is forced to be justified the law via discourse with the child, both it (the law) and the parent (the law giver) are destroyed, the patriarch paradigm is moribund, and the foundation of religion, nationalism, sovereignty, property rights, individual rights (bill of rights) cease to exist.

when the collective voice controls, the individual and his God given rights are destroyed

By focusing on the language of relationship, (ought to, should have, could have, might have, how do you feel, what do you think) with the exclusion (negation) of the language of position and sovereignty (can not, must not, thou shalt not, it is the truth, it is a fact, it is the law, it is right, it is written) the individual  looses his foundation of identity and can only regain it in the collective voice of social discourse.  According to Communist dictates, the individual is formed in a social context through social discourse and not by the conscience (the restraining voice of the past.)

Jürgen Habermas:
compelled discourse and  reflexive application

"Secular languages that simply eliminate what was once there leave behind only irritation." Theodor Adorno

    According to Jürgen Habermas:

"… the reflexive application of the universalisation test calls for a form of deliberation in which each participant is compelled to adopt the perspective of all others in order to examine whether a norm could be willed by all from the perspective of each person. This is the situation of a rational discourse oriented to reaching understanding in which all those concerned participate. This idea of a discursively produced understanding also imposes a greater burden of justification on the isolated judging subject than would a monologically applied universalisation test."*(see below)  (emphasis added)

Compel means "to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly, to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure , or drive together." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, A Merriam-Webster G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A

Discursive means "to run about – DISCOURSE [argument-extended expression], passing from one topic to another: DIGRESSIVE [to turn aside] or marked by analytical reasoning". ibid.

Pressure, from the dynamics of a group setting (group approval or disapproval), can force an individual to question his values or beliefs.  Hinging upon the 'reasonableness' of the explanation of their values, in the perceived mind of others in the group, the individual is forced to re-examine his values or beliefs in light of and for the sake of group approval.  When this becomes the case, his values shift from a patriarchal paradigm of "do what I tell you to do, even if you (or others) don't understand" or "What would my parents say?" to  a heresiarch paradigm of justification of value based upon there perceived reasonableness (reflexiveness) in the eyes of others "What does it mean to me," "What does it mean to the group," "What will the group think?" praxis.  Fear of God (parent, boss, constitution, etc) is replaced with the fear of man or mankind (the group.)  This is the hallmark of Communism.

Each person must make his value "understandable" in the eyes of all others in the group for it to be incorporated into the group norm. This mandate effectively removes any patriarch statement or command which interferes with the felt need of group approval and directly affects the respect one has toward the patriarch system (a religious foundation.) Habermas put it this way, "the devaluation of the epistemic authority of the God's eye view."  produces "the collapse of its religious foundation." This desire for group approval justifies a socialist redefinition of an authoritative value. The response to group needs results in group decision (consensus.)  The child's (or legislator's) desire to do what he wants to do, in light of the parents (constituents/constitutional) "Not" is manifested in his freedom to express his "ought to ___." with group approval.  The mandated expression of each participants positive "ought" (for it is always good in our eyes) by the group consensus process guarantees the overthrow of the patriarch "categorical imperative" reflected in the negative "Not."  "Congress shall not" becomes Congress (and the courts) can.  In that case Governmental restraints are gone.

Discourse can not be used when it comes to such issues as abominations (that which is wicked and stubborn.)

God and parent can deal with wicked, but not with both wicked and stubborn.  Punishment or judgment is the only option if the patriarch system is to retain its office, its position of power and influence. Abomination plus discourse equals apostasy/tyranny to a patriarchal system.  When the non-deviant is pressured into incorporating the language (the definitions) of the deviant they instantly abdicate their patriarchal system for a humanistic dialectic system (known as general systems theory.)  Their very participation has this changing affect.  "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by accepting belongingness to the group." Kurt Lewin in Human Relations in Curriculum Change, 1951. As Jürgen Habermas put it, "if moral realism can no longer be defended by appealing to a creationist metaphysics ["Because I say so." -- "I cause to be."] then moral statements can no longer be assimilated to the truth of assertoric statements ["Thou shalt not."]"

field of force loses its psychological existence

Once a person feels free to share their interpretation of an undesired or misunderstood command, such an environment removes the fear of the authority who make such commands.  As Kurt Lewin wrote "The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult. If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." Kurt Lewin; A Dynamic Theory of Personality, 1935  When the one under authority is given an environment where he can freely question authority and no longer fears reprisal from that authority figure, the moral commands given by that authority figure loose there restraining effect.

Jürgen Habermas:

A shift from obedience to God, parent, law, etc. toward mankind and his feelings, destroys the patriarch system of identity and replaces it with a heresiarch system of domination, "the group think." As Jürgen Habermas (JH) stated "The shift in perspective from God to human beings" toward "hypothetically introduced norm" (accepting of hypothetical considerations in setting standards) and "the authors of the norms" (the authority to participate in defining the norm)  effectively displaces the restrainer and the restraining law.  This effectively removes the restraining effect the Constitution has on limiting government intrusion upon the life of the citizens, resulting in a socialist, police state (the system of both the French and the Russian Revolutions) and prepares the citizenry to accept global domination as a viable solution to the traditional structured home, community, and nation. All are replaced by  collective desires, "needs" satisfaction.

"… Kant … tacitly assumes that in making moral judgments each individual can project himself into the situation of everyone else through his own imagination. But when the participants can no longer rely on a transcendental pre-understanding grounded in more or less homogeneous conditions of life and interests, …… the moral point of view can only be realized under conditions of communication that ensure that everyone tests the acceptability of a norm, implemented in a general practice, also from the perspective of his own understanding of himself and of the world ... "JH

"... in this way the categorical imperative receives a discourse-theoretical interpretation in which its place is taken by the discourse principle (D), according to which only those norms can claim validity that could meet with the agreement of all those concerned in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse. … the collapse of its religious foundation." JH

 Categorical imperative:
a moral obligation or command that is unconditionally and universally binding.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, A Merriam-Webster G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A

"With the devaluation of the epistemic authority of the God's eye view, moral commands lose their religious as well as their metaphysical foundation." JH

"(1) The fact that moral practice is no longer tied to the individual's expectation of salvation and an exemplary conduct of life through the person of a redemptive God and the divine plan for salvation has two unwelcome consequences. On the one hand, moral knowledge becomes detached from moral motivation, and on the other, the concept of morally right action becomes differentiated from the conception of a good or godly life." JH

"Discourse ethics correlates ethical and moral questions with different forms of argumentation, namely, with discourses of self-clarification and discourses of normative justification (and application), respectively.… justice and … solidarity." JH

"… uncoupling morality from questions of the good life leads to a motivational deficit. Because there is no profane substitute for the hope of personal salvation, we lose the strongest motive for obeying moral commands." JH

"Discourse ethics intensifies the intellectualistic separation of moral judgment from action even further by locating the moral point of view in rational discourse. There is no direct route from discursively achieved consensus to action." JH

"With the loss of its foundation in the religious promise of salvation, the meaning of normative obligation also changes. The differentiation between strict duties and less binding values, between what is morally right and what is ethically worth striving for, already sharpens moral validity into a normativity to which impartial judgment alone is adequate. The shift in perspective from God to human beings has a further consequence." JH

"This agreement expresses two things: the fallible reason of deliberating subjects who convince one another that a hypothetically introduced norm is worthy of being recognized, and the freedom of legislating subjects who understand themselves as the authors of the norms to which they subject themselves as addressees. The mode of validity of moral norms now bears the traces both of the fallibility of the discovering mind and of the creativity of the constructing mind." JH

"… moral commands were previously justified in a metaphysical fashion as elements of a rationally ordered world. As long as the cognitive content of morality could be expressed in assertoric statements, moral judgments could be viewed as true or false." JH

to destroy creationist metaphysics and Esoteric statements

"But if moral realism can no longer be defended by appealing to a creationist metaphysics and to natural law (or their surrogates), the validity of moral statements can no longer be assimilated to the truth of esoteric statements." JH

Source: Jürgen Habermas 1998 Communicative Ethics Source: The inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory. Jürgen Habermas. MIT Press, 1998, parts VIII and IX of Chapter 1 only, reproduced here; Transcribed by: Andy Blunden.


Habermas "wants to claim that all and only those norms that embody a 'universalizable interest' can be justified, and that only justifiable norms are valid." Hegel's Critique of Kant's Moral Theory and Habermas' Discourse Ethics  by James Gordon Finlayson   "Universalizable interests" are found in Romans 7:1-25 and 1 John 2:15-18

"the law of sin which is in my members"

Romans 7: 1-25

    Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?  For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

    For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

    Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

    For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.  For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

    For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

"the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life is of the world"

1 John  2:15-18

    Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Warren Bennis and family destruction

Warren Bennis in his book The Temporary Society wrote:

    In order to effect rapid change, . . . [one] must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved.  It is necessary, in other words, artificially to create an experiential chasm between parents and children—to insulate the children in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas. If one wishes to mold children in order to achieve some future goal, one must begin to view them as superior. One must teach them not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant.

. . . any intervention between parent and child tend to produce familial democracy regardless of its intent.  The consequences of family democratization take a long time to make themselves felt—but it would be difficult to reverse the process once begun. … once the parent can in any way imagine his own orientation to be a possible liability to the child in the world approaching.

… Once uncertainty is created in the parent how best to prepare the child for the future, the authoritarian family is moribund, regardless of whatever countermeasures may be taken.  The state, by its very interference in the life of its citizens, must necessarily undermine a parental authority which it attempts to restore.

Any non-family-based collectivity that intervenes between parent and child and attempts to regulate and modify the parent-child relationship will have a democratizing impact on that relationship.  For however much the state or community may wish to inculcate obedience and submission in the child, its intervention betrays a lack of confidence in the only objects from whom a small child can learn authoritarian submission, an overweening interest in the future development of the child-- in other words, a child centered orientation.

"By dialectic, I mean an activity of conscious, struggling to circumvent, the limitations imposed by the formal-logical law of contradiction." Norman A. Brown in Life Against Death, 1959

When the child is given the freedom to redefine the parents' commands, their laws, in light of the child's own desires (belonging to the group) the child circumvents the obedience structure of the law (obey or disobey, be blessed or punished, based upon the parents' position) and the guilty conscience is replaced with a disregard or contempt toward the parental figure and the patriarch system.  The same is true of adults, i.e. legislators, owners of businesses, ministers, etc.  The whole community is affected when such procedures are introduced through local institutions, schools, councils, churches, businesses, etc..

By allowing your child, your spouse, your representatives, your defender of the faith to engage in this diabolical dialectical discursive environment, you loose your child, your spouse, your representative, your defender of the faith to the world system, to the new world order.  Just know that this process does not consider itself successful until no one can escape, and that it always declares war on its own citizens.  Remember the French and Russian revolutions.  This process is all about patricide, killing the patriarch figure, the father figure in the family, the community, the work place, and in the church, all for the sake of world peace.  In mans quest for world piece based on the language of tolerance (only of the left, not the right) he forgets the fact that the word "tolerance" is not showing up on the day of judgment.  And foolishly does not realize that hell is permanent.  Jesus Christ did not promise peace on this earth.  It can only be found in Him.  He is the way (the only way), the truth, and life.  No man can come to the Heavenly Father but by Him.

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2006-2015

Internet Articles on Jürgen Habermas

This is not an approval for these sights, they are only listed here for anyone wanting more information on the subject.

intersubjective agreement

Rodger A. Payne

Associate Professors, Rodger A. Payne of the Department of Political Science, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY and Nayef H. Samhat of the Department of Government and International Politics, Centre College, Danville, KY in their paper Discourse Norms in World Politics, prepared for Panel on Habermas and the Practice of Global Politics, at the Annual Meetings, International Studies Association, New Orleans, LA, March 24-27, 2002 write:  define Jürgen Habermas's work: "Some of the most interesting work applies ideas borrowed from the voluminous writings of Frankfurt School philosopher Jürgen Habermas. For example, Habermasian concepts of deliberation, communicative action, and communicative rationality have been frequently employed because they highlight a pathway by which social interaction can lead to normative consensus. According to Habermas, if the members of a community discuss questions of mutual concern in some sort of public forum, they can discover or develop meaningful intersubjective agreement." (

Verfassungspatriotismus, the postnational constillation

William Outhwaite

William Outhwaite,of the University of Sussex, in his paper Notes towards a Model of European Social Structure writes "I share Habermas's view that modernity should be seen, among other things, as an unfinished and indeed open-ended project. Most importantly, the element of self-reflection which I would argue is built into the discourse of modernity implies that all our practices and ways of life are in principle open to questioning and attempts to justify them. They become in Habermas's sense post-conventional. Habermas has, for example, popularised Dolf Sternberger's conception of 'constitutional patriotism' (Verfassungspatriotismus) based not on membership of a particular ethnic or national community or Volk but on a rational and defensible identification with a decent constitutional state which may of course happen to be the one whose citizenship one holds. We have, I would argue, to embrace what Habermas has called the postnational constellation, precisely because of the horrors which have taken and continue to happen in Europe."

"Liberals tend to colonize all spaces they are in." Elizabeth Powers

"Public space becomes for liberals an extension of their private living room." Elizabeth Powers

Habermas on the Upper West Side by Elizabeth Powers: "Even before reading Jürgen Habermas-the German sociologist formerly associated with the Frankfurt School-I had come to suspect that discipline is foreign to the liberal mind, that liberals hate contours and self-definition that comes from limits. Thus, public space becomes for liberals an extension of their private living room. At a recent academic convention I attended (which means a profusion of liberal people), liberals could be distinguished from the other business travelers by the way they sat in the bar area of the hotel without ordering drinks, their feet on the coffee table in front of them, while their kids amused themselves by running up and down the escalators and diving on the couches. Liberals tend to colonize all spaces they are in."

 liberals impose their values on others who do not share them

Alan Wolfe

In a letter from Alan Wolfe entitled Religious Diversity and the Common Cause he writes:   "The first week will be dedicated to philosophical issues. One school of political philosophy, originating in Kant and developed by John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, argues that citizens, even when they strongly disagree, can at least agree to deliberate rationally over their differences. Two contemporary political philosophers, Amy Gutmann and Stephen Macedo, in particular have extended this position to some of our contemporary controversies; both insist, for example, that because good citizens ought to be thoughtful and deliberative ones, public schools can legitimately turn down requests by fundamentalist parents not to have their children exposed to literature they consider irreligious or immoral. (Macedo goes further and suggests that liberal democracies ought to prevent fundamentalist parents from enrolling their children in private schools that teach from a fundamentalist perspective.) There is, in this tradition, a strong affirmation of a common morality, one rooted in the Enlightenment and then applied in the United States through our commitments to liberal democracy.

But critics have pointed out that the Enlightenment is itself partisan and partial, defending one particular understanding of morality against others, a position articulated by Alasdair MacIntyre in After Virtue. If MacIntyre is right, then so is Stanley Fish, who argues in The Trouble With Principle that deliberative democracy is not neutral between various religions or between religion and non-religion but represents an effort by liberals and secularists to impose their values on others who do not share them. Theologian Stanley Hauerwas goes one step further and calls on religious believers to consider themselves "resident aliens" in a liberal democratic society on the assumption that their faith commitments will never be welcome so long as a common morality is based on liberal assumptions."

translating religious convictions into secular language

Jürgen Habermas

Speech by Jürgen Habermas accepting the Peace Prize of the German Publishers and Booksellers Association Paulskirche, Frankfurt, 14 October 2001   "religious communities are entitled to be called 'reasonable' only if they renounce the use of violence as a means of propagating the truths of their faith."  Religious "they must translate their religious convictions into a secular language before their arguments have the prospect of being accepted by a majority ... to translate the "in the image of God" character of the human creature into the secular language of constitutional law"  "In Kant we find the authority of divine command reestablished in the unconditional validity of moral duty. In this we hear an unmistakable resonance. With his conception of autonomy, Kant certainly destroyed the traditional conception of being "a child of God." "Something was lost when sin became guilt ... The lost hope of resurrection has left behind a palpable emptiness." "

Allow me to close by illustrating the concept of non-annihilating secularization with an example. In the controversy over the use of human embryos, many voices still allude to Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him." It is not necessary to believe that God, who is Love, created Adam and Eve as free beings like Himself in order to understand what "in His own image" means. Love cannot exist without knowledge of another, nor can freedom exist without mutual recognition.

Consequently, the "opposite stance" inherent in the nature of humanity must remain free to repay this gift of God. Despite his nature as a creature "in the image of God," this "otherness" can itself be considered a creation of God. The created nature of "in His own image" expresses an intuition that has something to say even to those who have no ear for religion, among whom I count myself. God remains a "God of free men" only as long as we do not erase the absolute difference between the Creator and the created. In other words, only as long as the gift of a divine form to man is taken to mean that no hindrance be placed on man's right of self-determination."

This Creator, because he is both Creator and Redeemer in one, need not operate as a technician according to the laws of nature, nor as a computer scientist according to the rules of code.... Did not the first person who subdued another person according to his own purposes destroy exactly that freedom which exists among peers in order to guarantee their difference?"

"Secular languages that simply eliminate what was once there leave behind only irritation." "a necessary and futile practice of a "redemption of the past"" (Adorno).

discourse ethics equals self annihilation

James Gordon Finlayson

 Hegel's Critique of Kant's Moral Theory and Habermas' Discourse Ethics  by James Gordon Finlayson.  "Habermas argues that theoretical and practical are isometric. They are different voices of one and the same reason." "discourse ethics does not require us to consider ourselves, both from the empirical standpoint, as finite, rational beings in the everyday world of appearances, and from the transcendental standpoint, as merely rational beings who are members of some notional "supersensible" community."

"discourse ethics, as conceived by Habermas ... to salvage the insights of Hegel's social theory from his metaphysics, "  "Habermas contends that the interpreter of an utterance is always in principle free to take up a "yes" or "no" stance to the validity claims raised by it, and thus to accept or reject it." "Habermas claims that it is possible to derive the principle of universalization (U) 15 which stipulates that the rationally motivated consensus can be reached only if all affected can freely accept the consequences and the side effects the general observance of a controversial norm can be anticipated to have for the satisfaction of the interests of each individual. "Although Habermas calls (U) a "moral principle" he does not mean by this that it is a duty, but that is a formal "rule of argumentation".16  "a formal pragmatic rule of moral argumentation that captures procedural conditions under which alone participants in discourse can rationally agree to the general implementation of a norm. It does this by linking rationally motivated consensus about norms to the real or anticipated satisfaction of universalizable interests."

"unlike the Categorical Imperative, principles (D) and (U) are not thought experiments that can be successfully undertaken by the individual, reflecting in isolation on the universalizability of her maxims." "(U) only applies in "real discourses" (MCC 94 & 92) and that the justification of norms "requires that a real discourse be carried out." (MCC 68) Herein lies his claim to take a genuinely 'intersubjective' and not a 'monological' approach to philosophy.20 " Habermas describes the discursive process as one in which "particular values i.e. values embodying merely particular interests are ultimately discarded as being not susceptible to consensus". "the moral standpoint "allows consensus only through universalizable interests."

A discussion in relation to the ‘Discourse Ethics' of Jurgen Habermas.

Roy Hornsby – June 1st , 2001.

Discourse can only take place where there are at least two participants and Habermas (1990) says that discourse ethics prevails on the following two propositions:

i. Normative claims to validity have cognitive meaning and can be treated like claims to truth.

ii. The justification of norms and commands requires that a real discourse be carried out and thus cannot occur in a strictly monological form, i.e., in the form of a hypothetical process of argumentation occurring in the individual mind. (p. 68).

Habermas (1990) uses the three types of rules that Alexy describes to acknowledge the normative presuppositions of a practical discourse. Firstly, the logical-semantic rules of argumentation are:

(1.1) No speaker may contradict himself.

(1.2) Every speaker who applies predicate F to object A must be prepared to apply F to all other objects resembling A in all relevant aspects.

(1.3) Different speakers may not use the same expression with different meanings (p. 87).

Habermas (1990) notes that presuppositions of argumentation at this level have no ethical content. The rules of jurisdiction and relevance at the second level do have some ethical content.

(2.1) Every speaker may assert only what he really believes.

(2.2) A person who disputes a proposition or norm not under discussion must provide a reason for wanting to do so (p.88).

According to Habermas (1990), the third level of rules that Alexy puts forth is:

(3.1) Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to take part in a discourse.

(3.2) a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.

b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the discourse.

c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires and needs.

(3.3) No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from exercising his rights as laid down in (3.1) and (3.2) (p. 88).

Habermas (1990) stresses that discourse rules are merely the form in which we present the adopted and known pragmatic presuppositions of a special type of speech, not the rules as in the rules for a game of chess for instance.

Because rational human beings recognize that they are vulnerable and seek collaboration with others in their community, Habermas (1990) has devised a moral principle (U) that every valid norm must fulfil:

(U) - All effected 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) (p. 65).

Habermas (1990) introduces (U) as a rule of argumentation and says that it makes agreement in practical discourses possible whenever matters of concern are open to regulation in the equal interests of everyone. He then formulates the principle of discourse ethics (D) which stipulates:

(D) - Only those norms can claim to be valid that meet (or could meet) with the approval of all affected in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse (p. 66).

Discourse ethics is founded not on the ‘I', but more correctly on the ‘we' and on the basis of a ‘mutual understanding' between all parties. Habermas questioned how it is that a ‘mutual understanding' is arrived at and surmised an oral transaction between two or more speaking human beings to be the glue of mutuality. Within the forms of communication there rests an implicit recognition of the other ‘I'. If the two ‘I's' can be referred to as subjects and there exists a discourse between those subjects then there exists an ‘inter'- subjectivity which has the potential for mutuality. We look for discourse ethics in the life-world of the ‘inter'.

Habermas observed the actuality of what ‘is' human association and contemplated how those relationships ‘ought' to be. The ‘ought' refers to the expectation that citizens who are committed to the ethics of discourse find it reasonable that we should respect the rights and liberties of others. In deliberation of what constitutes the ‘good life' and ‘how we should live', Habermas could not avoid recognizing the very tenet of our humanness – the ability that we possess to communicate through discourse and reach mutual understanding with each other.