The Austrian Economics Wiki - User contributions [en]

Loving Life (book)

2011-01-28T04:17:17Z

Justino:

{{stub}}

''Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It'' was written by Objectivist author [[Craig Biddle]] and originally published by [[Glen Allen Press]] in 2002.

The author purports to present a systematized and highly empirical introduction to the ethics of [[Ayn Rand]], showing that morality is a factually necessary requirement for living life.

==Table of Contents==

Introduction: Who Should Read This Book—And Why 
1. Religion Versus Subjectivism: Why Neither Will Do 
2. The Is–Ought Gap: Subjectivism's Technical Retreat 
3. To Be Or Not To Be: The Basic Choice 
4. Objective Moral Values: Basic Human Needs 
5. Making Life Meaningful: Living Purposefully 
6. Objective Moral Virtues: Principled Actions 
7. A Civilized Society: The Necessary Conditions 
8. Concluding Summary: What We Now Know 
Afterword: Terrorism, Altruism, and Moral Certainty 
Appendix. Emergency Situations: The Principle Remains 
Recommended Reading 
Index

Argumentation ethics

2011-01-28T04:13:04Z

Justino: /* Justification */

{{TOC right}}
'''Argumentation ethics''', a form of discourse ethics that attempts to establish normative or ethical truths by examining the presuppositions of discourse, is a defense of [[libertarianism]] rights asserting that argumentation, or discourse, is by its nature a conflict-free way of interacting and requires individual control of resources.

==Justification==
The argument by [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]], a modern proponent of argumentation ethics, goes that an individual cannot consistently logically deny, in the course of argumentation, any of those things which the argument, or discourse, presupposes; doing so is to perform a performative contradiction.

According to the theory, certain norms are presupposed as true by anyone engaging in genuine discourse.

===Hoppe's Rationale===

The rationale on behalf of argumentation ethics is found on page 334 of Hoppe's book ''[[The Economics and Ethics of Private Property]]''.

<blockquote>Argumentation does not consist of free-floating propositions but is a form of [[action]] requiring the employment of [[Scarcity|scarce]] means; and that the means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private [[property]]. For one thing, no one could possibly propose anything, and no one could become convinced of any proposition by argumentative means, if a person’s right to make exclusive use of his physical body were not already presupposed. It is this recognition of each other’s mutually exclusive control over one’s own body which explains the distinctive character of propositional exchanges that, while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement. It is also obvious that such a property right to one’s own body must be said to be justified ''a priori'', for anyone who tried to justify any norm whatsoever would already have to presuppose the exclusive right of control over his body as a valid norm simply in order to say, “I propose such and such.” Anyone disputing such a right would become caught up in a practical contradiction since arguing so would already imply acceptance of the very norm which he was disputing.</blockquote>

==Criticisms==

One criticism is that argumentation ethics conflates the ontological concept of control of one's self with the ethical concept of self-ownership. That is to say, just as someone has the ability to control one's self, that does not give rise to why another ought to refrain from physically interfering with that control.

{{stub}}
[[Category:Argumentation|*]]

Loving Life (book)

2011-01-28T04:10:49Z

Justino: Created page with "{{stub}} ''Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It'' was written by Objectivist author Craig Biddle and originally published by [[Glen Allen..."

{{stub}}

''Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It'' was written by Objectivist author [[Craig Biddle]] and originally published by [[Glen Allen Press]] in 2002.

The author purports to present a systematized and and highly empirical introduction to the ethics of [[Ayn Rand]], showing that morality is a factually necessary requirement for living life.

==Table of Contents==

Introduction: Who Should Read This Book—And Why 
1. Religion Versus Subjectivism: Why Neither Will Do 
2. The Is–Ought Gap: Subjectivism's Technical Retreat 
3. To Be Or Not To Be: The Basic Choice 
4. Objective Moral Values: Basic Human Needs 
5. Making Life Meaningful: Living Purposefully 
6. Objective Moral Virtues: Principled Actions 
7. A Civilized Society: The Necessary Conditions 
8. Concluding Summary: What We Now Know 
Afterword: Terrorism, Altruism, and Moral Certainty 
Appendix. Emergency Situations: The Principle Remains 
Recommended Reading 
Index

Harry Browne

2011-01-28T03:51:49Z

Justino: Created page with "{{Wikipedia text|Harry_Browne|398419507}} {{stub}} Harry Browne (June 17, 1933 – March 1, 2006) was an American libertarian writer, politician, and free-market investment ana..."

{{Wikipedia text|Harry_Browne|398419507}}

{{stub}}

Harry Browne (June 17, 1933 – March 1, 2006) was an American libertarian writer, politician, and free-market investment analyst. He ran for President of the United States as the nominee of the Libertarian Party in 1996 and 2000.

[[Category:Political candidate]]
[[Category:American libertarian]]
[[Category:Libertarian Party member]]
[[Category:Financial Analyst]]

Talk:Murray N. Rothbard

2011-01-27T02:24:40Z

Justino:

==Merge with [[Murray Rothbard]]==

This should be merged with the other Murray Rothbard article. [[User:CGrapes429|CGrapes429]] 18:47, 11 November 2010 (CST)

Agreed. Most people are going to search for "Murray Rothbard" [[User:Justino|Justino]] 20:18, 26 January 2011 (CST)

Talk:Murray N. Rothbard

2011-01-27T02:18:57Z

Justino:

This should be merged with the other Murray Rothbard article. [[User:CGrapes429|CGrapes429]] 18:47, 11 November 2010 (CST)

Agreed. Most people are going to search for "Murray Rothbard>" [[User:Justino|Justino]] 20:18, 26 January 2011 (CST)

Argumentation ethics

2011-01-27T02:12:24Z

Justino: /* Hoppe's Rational */

Argumentation ethics, a form of discourse ethics that attempts to establish normative or ethical truths by examining the presuppositions of discourse, is a defense of [[libertarianism]] rights asserting that argumentation, or discourse, is by its nature a conflict-free way of interacting and requires individual control of resources.

==Justificiation==
The argument by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a modern proponent of argumentation ethics, goes that an individual cannot consistently deny, in the course of argumentation, any of those things which the argument, or discourse, presupposes; doing so is to perform a performative contradiction.

According to the theory, certain norms are presupposed as true by anyone engaging in genuine discourse.

===Hoppe's Rational===

The rational on behalf of argumentation ethics is found on page 334 of Hoppe's book "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property."

<blockquote>Argumentation does not consist of free-floating propositions but is a form of action requiring the employment of scarce means; and that the means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property. For one thing, no one could possibly propose anything, and no one could become convinced of any proposition by argumentative means, if a person’s right to make exclusive use of his physical body were not already presupposed. It is this recognition of each other’s mutually exclusive control over one’s own body which explains the distinctive character of propositional exchanges that, while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement. It is also obvious that such a property right to one’s own body must be said to be justified a priori, for anyone who tried to justify any norm whatsoever would already have to presuppose the exclusive right of control over his body as a valid norm simply in order to say, “I propose such and such.” Anyone disputing such a right would become caught up in a practical contradiction since arguing so would already imply acceptance of the very norm which he was disputing.</blockquote>

==Criticisms==

One criticism is that argumentation ethics conflates the ontological concept of control of one's self with the ethical concept of self-ownership. That is to say, just as someone has the ability to control one's self, that does not give rise to why another ought to refrain from physically interfering with that control.

Argumentation ethics

2011-01-27T02:10:47Z

Justino:

Argumentation ethics, a form of discourse ethics that attempts to establish normative or ethical truths by examining the presuppositions of discourse, is a defense of [[libertarianism]] rights asserting that argumentation, or discourse, is by its nature a conflict-free way of interacting and requires individual control of resources.

==Justificiation==
The argument by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a modern proponent of argumentation ethics, goes that an individual cannot consistently deny, in the course of argumentation, any of those things which the argument, or discourse, presupposes; doing so is to perform a performative contradiction.

According to the theory, certain norms are presupposed as true by anyone engaging in genuine discourse.

===Hoppe's Rational===

The rational behind for argumentation ethics is found on page 334 of Hoppe's book "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property."

<blockquote>Argumentation does not consist of free-floating propositions but is a form of action requiring the employment of scarce means; and that the means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property. For one thing, no one could possibly propose anything, and no one could become convinced of any proposition by argumentative means, if a person’s right to make exclusive use of his physical body were not already presupposed. It is this recognition of each other’s mutually exclusive control over one’s own body which explains the distinctive character of propositional exchanges that, while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement. It is also obvious that such a property right to one’s own body must be said to be justified a priori, for anyone who tried to justify any norm whatsoever would already have to presuppose the exclusive right of control over his body as a valid norm simply in order to say, “I propose such and such.” Anyone disputing such a right would become caught up in a practical contradiction since arguing so would already imply acceptance of the very norm which he was disputing.</blockquote>

==Criticisms==

One criticism is that argumentation ethics conflates the ontological concept of control of one's self with the ethical concept of self-ownership. That is to say, just as someone has the ability to control one's self, that does not give rise to why another ought to refrain from physically interfering with that control.

Argumentation ethics

2011-01-27T02:08:48Z

Justino:

Argumentation ethics is a defense of [[libertarianism]] rights asserting that argumentation, or discourse, is by its nature a conflict-free way of interacting and requires individual control of resources.

==Justificiation==
The argument by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a modern proponent of argumentation ethics, goes that an individual cannot consistently deny, in the course of argumentation, any of those things which the argument, or discourse, presupposes; doing so is to perform a performative contradiction.

According to the theory, certain norms are presupposed as true by anyone engaging in genuine discourse. Argumentation ethics is a form of discourse ethics that attempts to establish normative or ethical truths by examining the presuppositions of discourse.

===Hoppe's Rational===

The rational behind for argumentation ethics is found on page 334 of Hoppe's book "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property."

<blockquote>Argumentation does not consist of free-floating propositions but is a form of action requiring the employment of scarce means; and that the means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property. For one thing, no one could possibly propose anything, and no one could become convinced of any proposition by argumentative means, if a person’s right to make exclusive use of his physical body were not already presupposed. It is this recognition of each other’s mutually exclusive control over one’s own body which explains the distinctive character of propositional exchanges that, while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement. It is also obvious that such a property right to one’s own body must be said to be justified a priori, for anyone who tried to justify any norm whatsoever would already have to presuppose the exclusive right of control over his body as a valid norm simply in order to say, “I propose such and such.” Anyone disputing such a right would become caught up in a practical contradiction since arguing so would already imply acceptance of the very norm which he was disputing.</blockquote>

==Criticisms==

One criticism is that argumentation ethics conflates the ontological concept of control of one's self with the ethical concept of self-ownership. That is to say, just as someone has the ability to control one's self, that does not give rise to why another ought to refrain from physically interfering with that control.

Argumentation ethics

2011-01-26T21:40:54Z

Justino:

First made prominent by [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]], argumentation ethics is a defense of [[libertarianism]] rights asserting that argumentation, or discourse, is by its nature a conflict-free way of interacting and requires individual control of resources; thus, he argues, certain norms are presupposed as true by anyone engaging in genuine discourse. Argumentation ethics is a form of discourse ethics that attempts to establish normative or ethical truths by examining the presuppositions of discourse.

==Justificiation==
Hoppe’s argument goes that an individual cannot consistently deny, in the course of argumentation, any of those things which it presupposes; doing so is to perform a performative contradiction.

===Hoppe's Rational===

The rational behind for argumentation ethics is found on page 334 of Hoppe's book "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property."

<blockquote>Argumentation does not consist of free-floating propositions but is a form of action requiring the employment of scarce means; and that the means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property. For one thing, no one could possibly propose anything, and no one could become convinced of any proposition by argumentative means, if a person’s right to make exclusive use of his physical body were not already presupposed. It is this recognition of each other’s mutually exclusive control over one’s own body which explains the distinctive character of propositional exchanges that, while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement. It is also obvious that such a property right to one’s own body must be said to be justified a priori, for anyone who tried to justify any norm whatsoever would already have to presuppose the exclusive right of control over his body as a valid norm simply in order to say, “I propose such and such.” Anyone disputing such a right would become caught up in a practical contradiction since arguing so would already imply acceptance of the very norm which he was disputing.</blockquote>

==Criticisms==

One criticism is that argumentation ethics conflates the ontological concept of control of one's self with the ethical concept of self-ownership. That is to say, just as someone has the ability to control one's self, that does not give rise to why another ought to refrain from physically interfering with that control.

Argumentation ethics

2011-01-26T21:33:23Z

Justino: Created page with "First made prominent by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, argumentation ethics is a defense of libertarian rights asserting that argumentation, or discourse, is by its nature a conflic..."

First made prominent by [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]], argumentation ethics is a defense of [[libertarian]] rights asserting that argumentation, or discourse, is by its nature a conflict-free way of interacting and requires individual control of resources; thus, he argues, certain norms are presupposed as true by anyone engaging in genuine discourse. Argumentation ethics is a form of discourse ethics that attempts to establish normative or ethical truths by examining the presuppositions of discourse.

==Justificiation==
Hoppe’s argument goes that an individual cannot consistently deny, in the course of argumentation, any of those things which it presupposes; doing so is to perform a performative contradiction.

===Hoppe's Rational===

The rational behind for argumentation ethics is found on page 334 of Hoppe's book "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property."

<blockquote>Argumentation does not consist of free-floating propositions but is a form of action requiring the employment of scarce means; and that the means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property. For one thing, no one could possibly propose anything, and no one could become convinced of any proposition by argumentative means, if a person’s right to make exclusive use of his physical body were not already presupposed. It is this recognition of each other’s mutually exclusive control over one’s own body which explains the distinctive character of propositional exchanges that, while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement. It is also obvious that such a property right to one’s own body must be said to be justified a priori, for anyone who tried to justify any norm whatsoever would already have to presuppose the exclusive right of control over his body as a valid norm simply in order to say, “I propose such and such.” Anyone disputing such a right would become caught up in a practical contradiction since arguing so would already imply acceptance of the very norm which he was disputing.</blockquote>

==Criticisms==

One criticism is that argumentation ethics conflates the ontological concept of control of one's self with the ethical concept of self-ownership. That is to say, just as someone has the ability to control one's self, that does not give rise to why another ought to refrain from physically interfering with that control.

User:Justino

2010-11-15T15:43:02Z

Justino: Created page with "A Texas native, I believe that if you wish to be free, you must allow others to be free as well. Most of my political writings are found online at the ''[http://www.whoplanswhom..."

A Texas native, I believe that if you wish to be free, you must allow others to be free as well.

Most of my political writings are found online at the ''[http://www.whoplanswhom.com/ Who Plans Whom?]'' blog. Here is more [http://www.whoplanswhom.com/about/ about me].