Critical Theory Vs Scientific Theory Essay

Better Essays
Critical theory is, in my opinion, best defined by Marx(1843), as the ‘self-clarification of struggles and wishes of the age’, a general applicable definition that does not take into consideration a specific historical time, place or political problem. In order to talk about critical theory and its genuinely critical features I believe it is essential to make a clear distinction between critical theories and scientific theories. According to Frankfurt School there are 3 main categories of differences: aims and goals, logical and cognitive structure and evidence used to determine acceptance. Firstly, scientific theories have as their aim the successful manipulation of the external world by instrumental use (Geuss,1981), while critical …show more content…
A Critical Theory should be explanatory because it has to provide a certain description about what is wrong with the current social reality the individual encounters. This is where the practical feature necessity is pointed out: in order for an individual to make a change regarding the social reality, the theory needs to indicate the actors that are able to change it. But no change can take place if there is no normative basis for it. This means that the theory should provide clear norms for criticism as well as the goals for a social transformation. One criteria without the other will lead to a non-critical …show more content…
Emancipation is seen as the process that sets free the individual from legal, social or political manipulation. In order to reach emancipation, the facts that are presented by the critical theory have to be understood, by the use of each individual’s beliefs and epistemic principles, in the terms of the circumstances that gave them birth; this concepts should not be taken as given, because otherwise it leads again to false

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Disobedience In Society

    • 1172 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Society are formed for the “mutual preservation of [citizen’s] lives, liberties and estate.”. To act against a law, a person must value their moral integrity as more valuable than the preservation of their property. The societal laws should not be based solely on majority values, instead those values which everyone may compromise to and not be restricted or have their consciences in contention should be upheld. Once an individual has determined that they cannot adapt their view for the protection society provides their property, then that individual has a duty to act on their morals or to leave that…

    • 1172 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    From his view, any action done from self-interest are taken to be prudent rather than moral. Categorical imperative differed from the view of the maxim to greater extent. Maxim uses the majority and the practice of act to justify the morality even if the action goes against the right of others. According to Maxim, the morality of an action can only be determined by its practice. Assessing the consequences that may result from the action is key in such cases.…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    We need to make the world fit around us rather than try to fit into the world. Thoreau gives the tools in which we can achieve this; autonomy and by exploring our minds. Thought I concede that being independent from society’s views and rules is important and necessary, I think that is impossible or very difficult to acquire or assert real individuality in today’s society. Currently, being unique and individualistic is the trend which poses the question, is it trying to be individualistic really being nonconformist in today’s society? However, whether this is able or not is not as important as to attempt to achieve that state of mind.…

    • 897 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The harm principle ensures that self-ruling and self-governance is implemented in society to the extent that it does not damage people in the process. In order to better understand the harm principle, we must take a deeper look into Mill’s theoretical approach of the concept. He first beings with distinguishing a difference between what is harm and a mere offence (Brink 2007, ch.3.6, para. 2). Harm is an action that is “injurious or set[s] back important interest[s] of particular people, interests in which they have rights,” whereas a mere offence is something that Mill’s does not see as a defence under the harm principle (Brink 2007, ch.3.6, para.…

    • 1465 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Can society advance without all of its people? In John Stuart Mill’s essay “On Liberty”, he makes the argument that we should have the freedom to perform any actions we wish, as long as those are not causing harm to any others. Mill makes a number of justifications for his argument throughout his essay. He understands that in order for society to function, there needs to be certain restrictions on individual’s liberty. He believes society’s control over an individual’s liberty should only be restricted to prevent harm to others.…

    • 1816 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Paradox Of Freedom

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Paradox of freedom Freedom is the power or right that enables someone to act, speak or think according to personal interest without hindrance or experiencing resistance. In connection to the freedom, it requires to be controlled whereby having freedom does not automatically prove one if free. Freedom is also associated and connected to some level of fundamental obligations. It requires one to use freedom wisely as it comes with responsibilities. The paradox of freedom is the essence of obligations that comes with freedom whereby involved person has to ensure they are maintained.…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Rawls believes that this model is necessary and it is a useful decide for the purposes we are engaged in. The function of the ideal reasoner is to generate standards and reasons that everyone will legitimately accept, even if one doesn’t necessarily like it. One cannot produce this without some kind of idealized reasoner that serves as a reference point that people can turn to in order to accept the conditions of society. This ideal reasoner will differ depending on who you are. Aspiring to the universal that people can step out of the presumed notions means that in doing so, it is necessary to hide some aspects which you know to be true.…

    • 1436 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It should be looked at case by case to take into consideration content and then determined whether the act immoral based on sound justifications in the terms Dworkin lays out. Society has a right to protect itself from harm and not what enacts an emotional response. Our society is strong enough to undergo moral changes that take place overtime and these changes do not corrupt our morals to the point of disintegration. If an immoral act is harmful against an individual or society as a whole there is a right to take action to rectify the situation so harm is no longer permitted. Devlin and Dworkin agree that not every individual is capable of giving consent and there should be restrictions of what individuals are capable of such, this would allow legal intervention in some of the acts Devlin considers immoral.…

    • 1204 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    A movement highlighting that oppression should not be made universal in order to appease the oppressors. The language is specific to the cause; making it universal will lead to erasure of the origins of the specific injustice that started the movement. This is similar to Loury’s argument, however, begs us to question the ability of individuals to pursue justice for social issue separately. People like Loury may find that having separate groups for causes slows down the process of achieve justice. This is founded in the idea that social identifiers do not stand alone but actually intersect in some places.…

    • 933 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    They need norms and know that morals are not self-attained that there must be something that guides human behavior. When given a situation, the decision is made based on what will produce the greatest good out of this situation. Although, there are decisions based off what is good for all they do have a set of standards or rules that are general and not to be broke. The deficiencies to this approach is that their approach that the end outcome justifies what they do is not seen as positive. This approach means that someone must say what is good for all in the situation and by what standards does this person have to judge or decide.…

    • 1369 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays