In a pluralistic world, the exercise of private autonomy by different individuals and groups can lead to clashes of interest. If a peaceful solution for these clashes of interest is sought, especially by means of public discussion, the focus turns to the questions: What kinds of reasons count? How should ambiguous concepts like “public order” or “good morals” be handled? In regard to content, moral-philosophical, socio-theoretical and political-philosophical interpretations enable different interpretations of “good morals” as a form of “public order”. (...) But, the contribution argues, the starting point for all the interpretations must be the pluralization of practical subjects and thus the co-existence of law and ethics as different normative orders. Thereby, it is essential to pursue different justification strands for “good morals” without deferring the central normative requirement for respect and recognition of private autonomy. (shrink)