LA DÉFECTUOSITÉ DES JUSTIFICATIONS MORALES DANS LE DÉBAT PUBLIC
Deficiency of Moral Justifications in Public Debate

Summary/Abstract: Moral justifications in the public debates suffer from a general defect: they do not really justify the positions in support of which they are invoked. This defect is formal: unlike epistemic and practical justifications, a moral justification fails to meet the philosophical requirement of justification of justifications. This deficiency does not, however, lead to the exclusion of justifications from public debates. Yet it is important to acknowledge its argumentative nature and to note that it handicaps moral justifications in the pursuit of their goal of persuasion. If moral justifications do not have to be disqualified, their use in public debates should nevertheless be subject to a few prescriptions that would take into account their defectiveness: a spirit of reserve and tolerance as well as a care taken to make explicit in what way the debates in which moral justifications are invoked really have an ethical impact.

• Details
• Contents