Cover not available
Part of
Dialogic Ethics
Edited by Ronald C. Arnett and François Cooren
[Dialogue Studies 30] 2018
► pp. 1–23

Ethics in dialogue

Ideals and reality

Ethics is considered to be rooted in human nature. Human beings as dialogic individuals have to balance their self-interests and social concerns. In performance, there is no ethical codex that determines once for all what is ‘good’ and ‘right.’ We have, in any historical moment, to decide how we want to mediate between ethical ideals and reality. Variables of use, such as practicability, culture, and interest, shape the decision in complex action games. After a brief survey of the history of studies on ethics, the article outlines the basic points of a holistic theory of dialogue in performance, and analyses a few authentic examples, which demonstrate that ethical ideals have to be adapted to conditions of reality.
Keywords: human nature, adaptation, ethical codex, ethics in performance, practicability, culture, interests
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. A brief survey of the history of ethical studies
  • 3.The universal basis: Ethics as an inborn property of human nature
  • 4.From the universal to the particular: Specialization of ethics by culture
  • 5.Ideals and practicability
  • 6. Interests of the masters of mankind
  • 7.Strategies of cooperation versus confrontation
  • 8.Outlook
  • References
Published online: 14 June 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.30.01wei
References (48)
References
Arnett, Ronald C. 2013. Communication Ethics in Dark Times. Hannah Arendt’s Rhetoric of Warning and Hope. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
. 2017a. “Communicative Ethics. The phenomenological sense of semioethics.” Language and Dialogue 7(1): 80–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. “Language as the Originative House of Dialogic Ethics.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 307–317. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2017c. Levinas’s Rhetorical Demand. The Unending Obligation of Communication Ethics. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth. 1950. A Rhetoric of Motives. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Chandler, Daniel. 2007. Semiotics: The Basics, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cho, Yongkil. 2005. Grammatik und Höflichkeit im Sprachvergleich. Direktive Handlungsspiele des Bittens, Aufforderns und Anweisens im Deutschen und Koreanischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer/de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2016a. Who Rules the World? Hamish Hamilton, UK: Penguin Random House.Google Scholar
. 2016b. What Kind of Creatures Are We? New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Damasio, Antonio. 1994. Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1976. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feynman, Richard P. 2001. The Pleasure of Finding Things out. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Fieser, James. “Ethics.” In The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, [URL], retrieved 19.2.2016.
Frawley, William. 1987. “Review Article: Teun A. van Dijk (ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis, I-IV.” Language 63: 361–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1960. Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Grein, Marion. 2007. “The Speech Act of Refusal within the Minimal Action Game. A comparative study of German and Japanese.” In Dialogue and Culture, ed. by Marion Grein and Edda Weigand, 95–113. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grein, Marion and Edda Weigand (eds). 2007. Dialogue and Culture. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. 2 vols. Frankfurt, Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
. 1991. “Comments on John Searle: ‘Meaning, Communication, and Representation.’” In John Searle and his Critics, ed. by Ernest Lepore and Robert van Gulick, 17–29. Cambridge, Mass./Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1996. Die Einbeziehung des Anderen. Studien zur politischen Theorie. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Harcourt, Edward. 2013. “Wittgenstein, Ludwig.” In The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, Hugh LaFollette (ed.), 5503–5510. Blackwell. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Roy. 1996. Signs, Language and Communication. Integrational and Segregational Approaches. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman O. 1971. Word and Language. In Selected Writings, vol. 2. 1962–2002. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2002. Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago University Press, sec. ed. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. “On the Human ‘Interaction Engine’.” In Roots of Human Sociality. Culture, Cognition and Interaction, ed. by N. J. Enfield and Stephen C. Levinson, 39–69. New York: Berg.Google Scholar
Lumsden, Charles J. and Edward O. Wilson. 2005. Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. New Jersey: World Scientific.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lanigan, Richard L. Forthc. “The Rhetoric of Discourse: Chiasm and Dialogue in Communicology.” (in this volume)
Marchand, Trevor H. J. 2010. “Making Knowledge: Explorations of the Indissoluble Relation between Minds, Bodies and Environment.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 16 (2): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pablé, Adrian and Christopher Hutton. 2015. Signs, Meaning and Experience. Integrational Approaches to Linguistics and Semiotics. Boston/Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Premawardhena, Neelakshi Chandrasena. 2007. “How diplomatic can a language be?” In Dialogue and Culture, ed. by Marion Grein and Edda Weigand, 213–226. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rapaille, Clotard. 2007. The Culture Code. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simon, Herbert A. 1962. “The Architecture of Complexity: Hierarchic Systems.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106: 467–482.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 2003. The Wealth of Nations. New York: Bantam Classics.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 1991. “The Dialogic Principle Revisited: Speech Acts and Mental States.” In Dialoganalyse III. Referate der 3. Arbeitstagung Bologna 1990, Sorin Stati, Edda Weigand and Franz Hundsnurscher (eds), vol. 1, 75–104. Tübingen: Niemeyer/de Gruyter. – Again 2009. In Edda Weigand. Language as Dialogue. From Rules to Principles of Probability, Sebastian Feller (ed.), 21–44. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. – Again 2016. In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, Alessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey (eds), 209–232. Cham etc.: Springer.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Word Meaning and Utterance Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 20: 253–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “The Sociobiology of Language.” In Dialogue and Culture, ed. by Marion Grein and Edda Weigand, 27–49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Paradigm Changes in Linguistics: From Reductionism to Holism.” Language Sciences 33: 544–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Rationality of Performance.” Philosophia Scientiae 18 (3): 247–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “How to Verify a Theory of Dialogue.” Language and Dialogue 6 (3): 349–369.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “The Concept of Language in an Utterance Grammar.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 214–233. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wilson, Edward O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge/Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1999. Consilience. The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. (1922) 1974. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Liu, Delin
2022. Review of Pickering & Garrod (2021): Understanding Dialogue: Language Use and Social Interaction. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 23:2 ► pp. 348 ff. DOI logo
Weigand, Edda
2018. Dialogue. In From Pragmatics to Dialogue [Dialogue Studies, 31], ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo
Weigand, Edda
2021. Language and dialogue in philosophy and science. Intercultural Pragmatics 18:4 ► pp. 533 ff. DOI logo
Linell, Per
2017. Dialogue, dialogicality and interactivity. Language and Dialogue 7:3 ► pp. 301 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Beyond Babel [FILLM Studies in Languages and Literatures, 18], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.