> but the statement that one person is more rational than another is,
> actually, unintelligible to
>me. I don't know what it means.
Is your average two year old able to solve abstract problems better or worse than your average stock market analyst? Ok, maybe that's a bad example. I understanding that rationality is heavily dependent on the context, most two years olds probably do pretty well for being, well, two years olds. But there is a greater capacity for reason in someone who has achieved a higher stage of cognitive development. Through abstraction, we can articulate the stages (or tasks) that a two year old must come to master if they are going to move on to a more reflective (yes, higher) position. Is this a hierarchy of rationality? You bet. I have no problem saying that your average undergrad student has a greater capacity to reason than your average two year old. Habermas is arguing that this 'higher capacity' *necessarily* comes with a moral foundation. So one cannot say, "I'm more rational than you are, so I am morally superior." This actually contradicts ta post-conventional cognitive stage of development, which entails the knowledge that moral respect must be granted to all people, and not just the enlightened. If you claim moral superiority, then this marks a regression of moral consciousness to a lower stage (conventional as opposed to post-conventional).
ken