And it even claims to conjoin the sphere of theoretical justification of the theory with the sphere of practice. And thus he claims for normative sentences only the 'weaker assumption of a validity claim that is analogous to the validity claim of truth'. This weaker assumption implies two consequences. Discourse ethics is a normative ethics for pluralistic societies which no longer have a single, overarching moral authority. The 'moral point of view' has a force to transcend the particularity of the contexts.
Moral theory provides a sort of mending or repair.
Thus Habermas differentiates strictly between 'questions of the good life' and 'questions of justice'. This is quite plausible because determining what a 'good life' is, under conditions of a value pluralism, has to be necessarily a limited determination. But certainly moral questions arise in contexts of the lifeworld, where our beliefs and decisions are shaped by values, habits and prejudices. The essential point of discourse ethics by Habermas is formulated in the principle of universalization and what it entails - namely, the principle of discourse . Habermas reformulates the Kantian version of the principle of universalization in terms of intersubjectivity.