| Revision as of 01:11, 31 December 2011 editMeUser42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,103 edits ←Redirected page to Discourse ethics#Argumentation Ethics← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:40, 6 February 2012 edit undoMeUser42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,103 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{improve|reason=some content requires additional citations and quotes.}} | |||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| '''Argumentation ethics''', is an ] for ] rights first advanced by ]. Argumentation ethics relies on ] and ]'s concept of ], ] and the ] of economist ]. Argumentation ethics asserts that since verbal argumentation aims to resolve conflicts in a non-violent way, only the ] is consistent with that aim and therefore it is a ] of argumentation, and cannot be rationally denied. | |||
| ==Praxeological Foundation== | |||
| Hoppe notes that since ] exists, conflicts arise over the use of ] between agents. Agents can then choose to resolve their conflicts in a non-violent way by engaging in argumentation. Therefore presupposed in the act of political argumentation are norms contingent to the goal of non-violent conflict resolution. Among these are "''] has accepted ] meaning''", "''valid propositions need justification''", ext. These norms Hoppe terms the ] of argumentation (APoA). The denial of norms presupposed in the act of argumentation constitutes a ], thereby voiding the argument of any meaning. Such norms underly any moral justification as any moral justification must take place in argument, as even to deny this would imply the denier is thus engaged in an argument. | |||
| ==Non-Aggression Principle== | |||
| Argumentation ethics aims to show the ] follows from the APoA and so is a logical presupposition of argumentation. Hoppe argues that only ] norms are consistent with the APoA, as ], have no intersubjective ]. Hoppe then argues that since argumentation requires the active use of one's body, all universal norms for resolving conflicts over the human body aside from ] are inconsistent with human action and argumentation<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe7.html</ref>. Hoppe then argues that since the resolution of conflicts over external ] must also be objectively justifiable, only the physical establishment of an objective link by original ] (i.e. ]) is consistent with argumentation. From these Hoppe concludes that only the non-aggression principle of self ownership and ] homesteading can be justified in an argument without contradiction<ref>http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty.pdf</ref>. | |||
| ==Punishment and Self Defense== | |||
| The "Estoppel" theory of ] extends Hoppe's theory by considering an argument between a victim and aggressor. Kinsella argues that an aggressor cannot coherently object to being proportionally punished for the act of aggression, by the victim or the victim's agents or heirs, i.e. he is "estopped" from withholding consent, because by committing aggression he commits himself to the proposition that the use of force is legitimate, and therefore, his withholding consent based on his right not to be physically harmed contradicts his aggressive legitimation of force. | |||
| ==Reception and Criticism== | |||
| Many modern libertarian scholars have accepted Hoppe's argument, among them ]<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard47.html</ref>, ], ], and ]. Economists ] and ] have expressed criticism<ref>mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf</ref>. Stephan Kinsella has addressed their criticism<ref>http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=312</ref>. Professor David Osterfeld has also expressed criticism, which was addressed by Hoppe<ref>http://www.scribd.com/doc/15691112/8/Appendix-Four-Critical-Replies</ref>. | |||
| ==References== | |||
| <references /> | |||
Revision as of 05:40, 6 February 2012
 | This article may require cleanup to meet Misplaced Pages's quality standards. The specific problem is: some content requires additional citations and quotes. Please help improve this article if you can. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Argumentation ethics, is an argument for libertarian rights first advanced by Hans Hermann Hoppe. Argumentation ethics relies on Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel's concept of Discourse Ethics, praxeology and the deontological ethics of economist Murry Rothbard. Argumentation ethics asserts that since verbal argumentation aims to resolve conflicts in a non-violent way, only the Non-aggression principle is consistent with that aim and therefore it is a presupposition of argumentation, and cannot be rationally denied.
Praxeological Foundation
Hoppe notes that since scarcity exists, conflicts arise over the use of rivalrous goods between agents. Agents can then choose to resolve their conflicts in a non-violent way by engaging in argumentation. Therefore presupposed in the act of political argumentation are norms contingent to the goal of non-violent conflict resolution. Among these are "language has accepted intersubjective meaning", "valid propositions need justification", ext. These norms Hoppe terms the apriori of argumentation (APoA). The denial of norms presupposed in the act of argumentation constitutes a performative contradiction, thereby voiding the argument of any meaning. Such norms underly any moral justification as any moral justification must take place in argument, as even to deny this would imply the denier is thus engaged in an argument.
Non-Aggression Principle
Argumentation ethics aims to show the non-aggression principle follows from the APoA and so is a logical presupposition of argumentation. Hoppe argues that only universal norms are consistent with the APoA, as arbitrary categorical distinctions, have no intersubjective justification. Hoppe then argues that since argumentation requires the active use of one's body, all universal norms for resolving conflicts over the human body aside from self-ownership are inconsistent with human action and argumentation. Hoppe then argues that since the resolution of conflicts over external resources must also be objectively justifiable, only the physical establishment of an objective link by original appropriation (i.e. homesteading) is consistent with argumentation. From these Hoppe concludes that only the non-aggression principle of self ownership and lockean homesteading can be justified in an argument without contradiction.
Punishment and Self Defense
The "Estoppel" theory of Stephan Kinsella extends Hoppe's theory by considering an argument between a victim and aggressor. Kinsella argues that an aggressor cannot coherently object to being proportionally punished for the act of aggression, by the victim or the victim's agents or heirs, i.e. he is "estopped" from withholding consent, because by committing aggression he commits himself to the proposition that the use of force is legitimate, and therefore, his withholding consent based on his right not to be physically harmed contradicts his aggressive legitimation of force.
Reception and Criticism
Many modern libertarian scholars have accepted Hoppe's argument, among them Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, David Gordon, and Stephan Kinsella. Economists Bob Murphy and Gene Callahan have expressed criticism. Stephan Kinsella has addressed their criticism. Professor David Osterfeld has also expressed criticism, which was addressed by Hoppe.
References
- http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe7.html
- http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty.pdf
- http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard47.html
- mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf
- http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=312
- http://www.scribd.com/doc/15691112/8/Appendix-Four-Critical-Replies