23
Beyond considering these principles as regulative ideas to give orientation to
ethical refl ection, another function of these principles should be mentioned.
They can also be used to educate and build capacity in the fi eld of water as they
include the main lines of argumentation in discussing any interventions into
water systems. In this way the principles also could contribute to raising awareness about water problems, to avoid or overcome biased or limited views on
those interventions, to enrich public debates and to shape a more responsible
collective consciousness.
2.4 Cultural and Social Preconditions of the Ethical
Discourse
The above-mentioned considerations raise the question how the preconditions of
ethical discourses could be fulfi lled – and what could be done in case they are not
fulfi lled. A sociological suspicion is that the idea of ethics is purely counterfactual
in the sense that it might be an artefact without any empirical relevance: wishful
thinking in an idealised world. However, things are more complex. The target of
ethics – looking for an argument-based and peaceful way of confl ict solving – is
built on a strong normative foundation (Habermas 1991 ). It provides us with wellfounded ideas of how confl icts should be solved – and these ideas serve as a kind of
benchmark against which we can evaluate our status quo situation. This comparison
then can give rise to change in the status quo – in this respect the power of normative
thinking can even be revolutionary.
However, the question remains how the fulfi lment of the necessary preconditions
of ethical discourses could be supported. Counteracting aspects are, obviously:
• Religious fundamentalism – in an ethical discourse every normative position
must be subject to criticism and possible change which is incompatible to
fundamentalism.
• Prejudice due to race, gender, culture, etc. – ethical discourses need mutual
respect among the discourse partners including the confl icting opponents independent from racial, cultural or gender issues.
• Fundamentalist commitments to own and partisan positions without any willingness to modify them in case of better arguments in favour of other positions.
Looking at the empirical situation it quickly becomes clear that the preconditions
of ethical discourses will mostly be not fulfi lled. However, that is no forceful argument against ethical discourses raises the question how the fulfi lment of such conditions could be supported. The challenge is to convince people to participate and to
accept the rules of an ethical discourse. At the core of this challenge is to convince
people to accept the “discourse risk” which means: you never know at the beginning
of the discourse what the result will be – and possibly the result will be contradictory with your initial position. Why should people accept this risk? From an ethics
2 Water Ethics – Orientation for Water Confl icts as Part of Inter-…
Beyond considering these principles as regulative ideas to give orientation to
ethical refl ection, another function of these principles should be mentioned.
They can also be used to educate and build capacity in the fi eld of water as they
include the main lines of argumentation in discussing any interventions into
water systems. In this way the principles also could contribute to raising awareness about water problems, to avoid or overcome biased or limited views on
those interventions, to enrich public debates and to shape a more responsible
collective consciousness.
2.4 Cultural and Social Preconditions of the Ethical
Discourse
The above-mentioned considerations raise the question how the preconditions of
ethical discourses could be fulfi lled – and what could be done in case they are not
fulfi lled. A sociological suspicion is that the idea of ethics is purely counterfactual
in the sense that it might be an artefact without any empirical relevance: wishful
thinking in an idealised world. However, things are more complex. The target of
ethics – looking for an argument-based and peaceful way of confl ict solving – is
built on a strong normative foundation (Habermas 1991 ). It provides us with wellfounded ideas of how confl icts should be solved – and these ideas serve as a kind of
benchmark against which we can evaluate our status quo situation. This comparison
then can give rise to change in the status quo – in this respect the power of normative
thinking can even be revolutionary.
However, the question remains how the fulfi lment of the necessary preconditions
of ethical discourses could be supported. Counteracting aspects are, obviously:
• Religious fundamentalism – in an ethical discourse every normative position
must be subject to criticism and possible change which is incompatible to
fundamentalism.
• Prejudice due to race, gender, culture, etc. – ethical discourses need mutual
respect among the discourse partners including the confl icting opponents independent from racial, cultural or gender issues.
• Fundamentalist commitments to own and partisan positions without any willingness to modify them in case of better arguments in favour of other positions.
Looking at the empirical situation it quickly becomes clear that the preconditions
of ethical discourses will mostly be not fulfi lled. However, that is no forceful argument against ethical discourses raises the question how the fulfi lment of such conditions could be supported. The challenge is to convince people to participate and to
accept the rules of an ethical discourse. At the core of this challenge is to convince
people to accept the “discourse risk” which means: you never know at the beginning
of the discourse what the result will be – and possibly the result will be contradictory with your initial position. Why should people accept this risk? From an ethics
2 Water Ethics – Orientation for Water Confl icts as Part of Inter-…