| Revision as of 12:51, 19 May 2021 edit2409:4072:70b:488c::151e:38a1 (talk) lalalalalalalalaTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit Articles for deletion template removed← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:51, 20 September 2021 edit undoBiogeographist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,701 edits merged into Hans-Hermann Hoppe per WP:Articles for deletion/Argumentation ethicsTag: New redirect |
| (12 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Rcat shell| |
|
<!-- Once discussion is closed, please place on talk page: {{Old AfD multi|page=Argumentation ethics|date=18 May 2021|result='''keep'''}} --> |
|
|
|
{{R from merge}} |
|
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> |
|
|
|
{{R to section}} |
|
{{Libertarianism sidebar |expanded=Concepts}} |
|
|
|
{{R unprintworthy}} |
|
'''Argumentation ethics''' is a theory developed in 1988 by ], a Professor Emeritus with the ] College of Business and ] Senior Fellow.<ref name="hanshoppe">{{cite journal |last=Hoppe |first=Hans-Hermann |author2=Murray N. Rothbard|author3=David Friedman|author4=Leland Yeager|author5=David Gordon|author6=Douglas Rasmussen |title=Liberty Symposium |journal=Liberty |date=November 1988 |volume=2 |url=http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/liberty_symposium.pdf}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Hoppe argues that the mere act of argumentation implies agreement with anarcho-capitalist principles, and therefore, that arguing against ] is logically contradictory. Hoppe's argument has received marginal attention from philosophers and logicians. Responses have mainly come from Hoppe's colleagues at the Mises Institute, among whom the argument's reception has been mixed.<ref name="blog.mises">{{cite web|last=Kinsella|first=Stephan|title=Revisiting Argumentation Ethics|url=http://archive.mises.org/9610/revisiting-argumentation-ethics/|work=Mises Economics Blog|publisher=]|author-link=Stephan Kinsella|date=March 13, 2009|quote= number of thinkers weighed in, including ], ... ], ... ], ... ], ... ], ... ], ...], and others....}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Argument== |
|
|
Hoppe believes that his theory is an ], ] ] argument for what he describes as "] ]".<ref name="hanshoppe" /> His theory argues the recognition of ] is a ] of every argument and so cannot be logically denied during an argument. Argumentation ethics draws on ideas from ]'s and ]'s ], from ] praxeology and from the ] of ].{{Fact|date=May 2021}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Hoppe believes that, in the course of having an argument about politics (or indeed any subject), people assume certain norms of argumentation, including a prohibition on initiating violence. Hoppe then extrapolates this argument to political life in general, arguing that the norms governing argumentation should apply in all political contexts. Finally, Hoppe suggests that, according to him, of all political philosophies, only anarcho-capitalist libertarianism prohibits the initiation of aggressive violence. Therefore, Hoppe concludes, any argument for any political philosophy other than anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is logically incoherent.{{Fact|date=May 2021}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Responses from scholars== |
|
|
Responses to Hoppe's argument mainly came from Hoppe's friends and colleagues at the Mises Institute.<ref name="blog.mises" /> Some of them accepted his argument, among them attorney ]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=312 |title=Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan |last=Kinsella |first=Stephan |date=19 September 2002 |publisher=Anti-State.com |access-date=9 February 2012}}</ref> and economists ] and ],<ref name=anarcho-lockean>{{cite web |url=https://mises.org/daily/4629 |title=Beyond Is and Ought |first=Murray N. |last=Rothbard |date=November 1988|publisher=] |access-date=14 October 2012}}</ref> who called it "a dazzling breakthrough for political philosophy in general and for libertarianism in particular," adding "he has managed to transcend the famous is/ought, fact/value dichotomy that has plagued philosophy since the days of the Scholastics..."<ref name=anarcho-lockean/> |
|
|
|
|
|
Mises Institute economists ] and Gene Callahan rejected Hoppe's argument.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Murphy |first1=Robert P. |last2=Callahan |first2=Gene |date=Spring 2006 |title=Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: A Critique |journal=] |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=53–6 |url=https://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf |access-date=9 February 2012 }}</ref> The late ] David Osterfeld, an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute, also rejected Hoppe's argument in an essay to which Hoppe subsequently responded.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/osterfeld_hoppe.pdf |title=Comment on Hoppe / Comment on Osterfeld |year= 1988 |publisher=Austrian Economics Newsletter |access-date=14 October 2012}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Ludwig Von Mises Institute Senior Fellow and Auburn University philosopher ] reconstructed the argument in ] form, specifying four premises on whose truth the argument's soundness depends. Long goes on to argue that each premise is either uncertain, doubtful, or clearly false. He summarizes his views by stating:{{quote|I don’t think there's any reason to reject out of hand the kind of argument that Hoppe tries to give; on the contrary, the idea that there might be some deep connection between libertarian rights and the requirements of rational discourse is one I find attractive and eminently plausible. But I am not convinced that the specific argument Hoppe gives us is successful.<ref>{{cite web|last=Long|first=Roderick T.|author-link=Roderick Long|title=The Hopperiori Argument|url=http://praxeology.net/unblog05-04.htm#10}}</ref>}} |
|
|
|
|
|
A political theorist has concluded in a doctoral dissertation on the political philosophy of several Austrian economists that Hoppe has not provided any non-circular reasons why we "have to regard moral values as something that ''must'' be regarded as being established through (consensual) argument instead of 'mere' subjective preferences for situations turning out in certain ways". In other words, the theory relies on "the existence certain intuitions, the acceptance of which cannot itself be the result of 'value-free' reasoning."<ref>J. Mikael Olsson, ''Austrian Economics as Political Philosophy'', Stockholm Studies in Politics 161, p. 157, 161.</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Mainstream libertarian philosophers reject Hoppe’s argument. ] argues:{{quote| For the sake of argument, on Hoppe’s behalf, grant that by saying “I propose such and such,” I take myself to have certain rights over myself. I take myself to have some sort of right to say, “I propose such and such.” I also take you to have some sort of right to control over your own mind and body, to control what you believe. (Nota bene: I don’t think Hoppe can even get this far, but I’m granting him this for the sake of argument.). All I need to avoid a performative contradiction is for me to have a liberty right to say, ‘I propose such and such.’ I need not presuppose I have a claim right to say ‘I propose such and such.’ Instead, at most, I presuppose that it’s permissible for me to say, ‘I propose such and such’. I also at most presuppose that you have a liberty right to believe what I say. I do not need to presuppose that you have a claim right to believe what I say. However, libertarian self-ownership theory consists of claim rights… Hoppe’s argument illicitly conflates a ], and so fails.”<ref>{{cite web|author=Jason Brennan |url=https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/12/hoppes-argumentation-ethics-argument-refuted-in-under-60-seconds/ |title=Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics Argument Refuted in Under 60 Seconds |publisher=Bleeding Heart Libertarians |date=2013-12-12 |access-date=2019-12-27}}</ref>}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==See also== |
|
|
{{columns-list|colwidth=30em| |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
==References== |
|
|
{{Reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Further reading== |
|
|
* {{cite journal|last=Van Dun|first=Frank|title=Argumentation ethics and the philosophy of freedom|journal=Libertarian Papers|date=January 1, 2009|url=https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-201551105|access-date=May 8, 2013|author-link=Frank Van Dun}} |
|
|
* ], |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
==External links== |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* , video introduction by Hoppe |
|
|
* , on-line course by Stephan Kinsella. |
|
|
* {{cite journal|title=A Reply to the Current Critiques Formulated Against Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics|last=Eabrasu|first=Marian|journal=Libertarian Papers|year=2009|volume=1|url=http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/20-eabrasu-critiques-argumentation-ethics/|access-date=2012-02-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120114080212/http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/20-eabrasu-critiques-argumentation-ethics/|archive-date=2012-01-14|url-status=dead}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|