22
cases. This is an issue of hermeneutics, interpretation, deliberation, balancing and
weighing – a political activity in its wider sense. Theories of democracies as well as
ethics postulate that these activities should be performed in a participatory manner,
involving people concerned and affected, as well as taking into account future generations and ecosystems by applying an advocatory approach.
These principles are, due to ethical theory, universal. They serve as “regulative
ideas” and shall orientate ethical deliberation. But they cannot be used for simply
deducing the ethically best or optimal solution. The process of identifi cation needs
the “real deliberation” with people concerned and affected as well as with stakeholders and decision-makers (Schwemmer 1987 ). Assessing optional water interventions with regard to ethical criteria, and this is the “procedural” message of
discourse ethics, should be arranged in accordance with principles of fairness and
equity (see Habermas 1991 ; Renn and Webler 1998 ) including the requirements:
• Participants in communicative exchange are using the same linguistic expressions in the same way.
• Participants agree to modify their own positions in case of better arguments
given by others.
• No relevant argument is suppressed or excluded by the participants.
• Everyone entitled to participate, and everyone is equally entitled to introduce
new topics or express attitudes needs or desires.
• No force except that of the better argument is exerted.
• No validity claim is exempt in principle from critical evaluation in argumentation
(this in particular also holds for religious belief).
Processing the discourse in this way produces its result – and there is no abbreviation available, no algorithm, which could “calculate” the result without the “real
deliberation” in a discourse. Habermas’ basic idea is that the validity of ethical
advice cannot be justifi ed by an isolated individual thinking about the world, or by
deriving it from abstract principles in an “ivory tower”. Instead, the validity of a
normative statement can only be justifi ed in processes of inter-subjective argumentation in the real world. Water ethics shows itself as a specifi c kind of discourse
ethics on water management intervening into water systems.
If the argumentation itself shall provide valid normative statements the focus is
shifted to the conditions and presuppositions of the discourse. Criteria must be
given to ensure that in a discourse taking place in the real world, the conditions are
fulfi lled to allow the “power of the argument” only to determine its course. Misuse
of the discourse for ideological purposes, persuasive speech instead of argumentation, asymmetric access to important knowledge and other exertions of power in
contrast to argumentative power have to be excluded.
In a discourse on water issues arguments shall be exchanged, challenged and
defended following strict rules of fairness and equity, which shall ensure the justice
of the procedure. All people involved or affected have the same right to participate
and to bring in their arguments. This approach applies both to the discourses on
water use and to decision-making in water governance.
A. Grunwald
cases. This is an issue of hermeneutics, interpretation, deliberation, balancing and
weighing – a political activity in its wider sense. Theories of democracies as well as
ethics postulate that these activities should be performed in a participatory manner,
involving people concerned and affected, as well as taking into account future generations and ecosystems by applying an advocatory approach.
These principles are, due to ethical theory, universal. They serve as “regulative
ideas” and shall orientate ethical deliberation. But they cannot be used for simply
deducing the ethically best or optimal solution. The process of identifi cation needs
the “real deliberation” with people concerned and affected as well as with stakeholders and decision-makers (Schwemmer 1987 ). Assessing optional water interventions with regard to ethical criteria, and this is the “procedural” message of
discourse ethics, should be arranged in accordance with principles of fairness and
equity (see Habermas 1991 ; Renn and Webler 1998 ) including the requirements:
• Participants in communicative exchange are using the same linguistic expressions in the same way.
• Participants agree to modify their own positions in case of better arguments
given by others.
• No relevant argument is suppressed or excluded by the participants.
• Everyone entitled to participate, and everyone is equally entitled to introduce
new topics or express attitudes needs or desires.
• No force except that of the better argument is exerted.
• No validity claim is exempt in principle from critical evaluation in argumentation
(this in particular also holds for religious belief).
Processing the discourse in this way produces its result – and there is no abbreviation available, no algorithm, which could “calculate” the result without the “real
deliberation” in a discourse. Habermas’ basic idea is that the validity of ethical
advice cannot be justifi ed by an isolated individual thinking about the world, or by
deriving it from abstract principles in an “ivory tower”. Instead, the validity of a
normative statement can only be justifi ed in processes of inter-subjective argumentation in the real world. Water ethics shows itself as a specifi c kind of discourse
ethics on water management intervening into water systems.
If the argumentation itself shall provide valid normative statements the focus is
shifted to the conditions and presuppositions of the discourse. Criteria must be
given to ensure that in a discourse taking place in the real world, the conditions are
fulfi lled to allow the “power of the argument” only to determine its course. Misuse
of the discourse for ideological purposes, persuasive speech instead of argumentation, asymmetric access to important knowledge and other exertions of power in
contrast to argumentative power have to be excluded.
In a discourse on water issues arguments shall be exchanged, challenged and
defended following strict rules of fairness and equity, which shall ensure the justice
of the procedure. All people involved or affected have the same right to participate
and to bring in their arguments. This approach applies both to the discourses on
water use and to decision-making in water governance.
A. Grunwald