43 Am. J. Juris. 53 (1998)
This essay argues that Plato's critical analysis of the ethics of discourse is superior to Habermas', and more generally that Habermas has no sufficient reason to propose or suppose the philosophical superiority of "modernity." The failure of Hume and Kant and much modern philosophy to understand the concept and content of reasons for action underlies Habermas' attempted distinction between ethics and morality, and Rawls' concept of public reason. A proper study of discourse also yields a metaphysics of the person, and thus reinforces the ethics.
John M. Finnis,
Natural Law and the Ethics of Discourse,
43 Am. J. Juris. 53 (1998).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/872