Abstract

Recent linguistic pragmatics has emphasized that talking is acting. Action, however, belongs to the field of ethics. Hence, of what nature is the relationship that exists between the norms of ethics and the rules of conversation? The question is easy to answer on particular cases, for example, when asking about the permissibility of lying and deception. The matter, however, becomes more complex, when comparing the field of ethics to the rules of conversation, so it will be studied first. Then, the forms of regulated existence in society and conversation are correlated with those in politics and state. This raises the question of the extent to which the society that comes together in sociable conversation is to be seen in analogy to the society of state, so that parallels between the political theory and the theory of sociability can be found. Due to the special significance of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in the Late Scholasticism of the Spanish Golden Age, we take the Aristotelian ethics and politics as the starting point for this investigation.

Abstract

El artículo cuestiona la efectividad del modelo de razonamiento ético de la Potter box en cuanto a su aplicación a dilemas de ética de la información. No obstante su importancia para fomentar el debate racional sobre ética aplicada, este modelo, como probablemente todos los modelos de razonamiento ético, es incapaz de determinar la teoría moral que mejor podría justificar el curso de acción justo en los casos más dilemáticos. A partir de varios ejemplos presentados en Media ethics: Cases and moral reasoning (Christians et al., 2005), mostraremos que las decisiones morales, en última instancia, radican en lo que Paul Ricoeur llama “convicción”. Ninguna solución para dilemas éticos puede ser encontrada a priori. Ese es el drama de la acción. Abstract This article questions the effectiveness of the Potter box model of moral reasoning when applied to information ethical dilemmas. Though its importance in feeding the desirable rational debate on ethical problems, this model, and probably all models, fails in the most problematic cases to solve the question of which theory best fits to a particular situation. With the help of some examples provided in Media ethics: Cases and moral reasoning (Christians et al., 2005), we will seek to demonstrate that ultimately decisions are grounded in what Paul Ricoeur calls “conviction”. No solutions to ethical dilemmas can be found a priori. That is the drama of action.