Content area
Full text
Introduction
It is not hard to convince any informed person that moral dissensus is a distinct feature of our time. Numerous examples from a broad range of fields could be cited to prove the point. One could, amongst other things, either refer to irreconcilable viewpoints on issues like abortion and euthanasia in the field of medical ethics, or compulsary AIDS-testing and affirmative action in the field of business ethics. What is however much harder, is to convince people of the meaning and value of moral debate amidst and despite the mentioned moral dissensus. To some it appears that the apparent irreconcilability of the opposing moral standpoints have rendered moral debate meaningless. To these sceptics it seems that moral debate without a shared criterion by which the conflicting truth-claims of the opposing parties could be settled, is merely a waste of time.
The aim of this paper is to argue that moral debate amidst moral dissensus does have meaning and value if due cognizance is taken of the postmodern culture in which we live. In order to achieve this aim I shall start by giving an explanation of the moral dissensus that prevails. Then a critical discussion of solutions proposed by other thinkers for coping with moral decision-making amidst moral dissensus will follow. After presenting an approach called rational interaction for moral sensitivity, which I regard as most suitable for coping with moral decision-making in our post-modern world, I shall conclude by defending it against some of the most obvious objections that might be raised against it in a business environment.
1. AN EXPLANATION OF MORAL DISSENSUS
The story of the current moral dissensus daces back to the beginning of the modern era (or modernity). In the Middle Ages which preceded the modern era, moral dissensus was not only uncommon, but even the slightest indication of moral dissensus was regarded as a serious and dangerous defect. The era of the Middle Ages was, amongst other things, characterized by two distinguishing features. On the one hand there was the dominant position of the church and on the other hand the supporting role that reason played towards the church and theology. Not only was reason legitimated by the church, but also its role and the scope of its...