Abstract

A central supposition of the "communicative ethics controversy" in modern social theory has been either that there exist universal standards against which we can judge the validity of speech and moral argumentation or, conversely, that there are no determinate standards to which moral claims can be held answerable, and hence no methods by which disputes over contested claims can rationally be resolved. In this paper it is argued that the basic terms of this debate are miscast. The "order without rules" thesis maintains both that the search for universal standards of valid moral arguments is likely to end in disappointment, and that nonetheless there are discoverable methods by which arguments are evaluated, facts constituted, and disputes settled, and for which appeals to general standards of validity are neither requested nor forthcoming. Wittgenstein's numerous remarks on rules and rule following are considered in support of this thesis