Argumentation ethics - Revision history

ArchiveBot: Repoint 1 dead mises.org link to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)

2026-08-16T04:21:35Z

Repoint 1 dead mises.org link to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:21, 16 August 2026
Line 34:		Line 34:
	* Other media		* Other media
	** [http://mises.org/media/1507 "Law and Economics"] lecture by [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]], August 2005		** [http://mises.org/media/1507 "Law and Economics"] lecture by [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]], August 2005
	** [~~http~~://~~mises~~.org/~~media~~/~~3965~~ "Law and Economics"] lecture by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, July 2009		** [https://freecapitalists.org/books/two-views-of-liberty-occidental-and-oriental/ "Law and Economics"] lecture by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, July 2009
	** [http://mises.org/media/6538 "Property and the Social Order"] lecture by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, July 2011		** [http://mises.org/media/6538 "Property and the Social Order"] lecture by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, July 2011

173.245.49.236: /* Links */ Argumentation Ethics introduction

2012-02-10T10:10:44Z

Links: Argumentation Ethics introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:10, 10 February 2012
Line 30:		Line 30:
	* {{mb\|9610\|Revisiting Argumentation Ethics\|Stephan Kinsella\|March 2009}}		* {{mb\|9610\|Revisiting Argumentation Ethics\|Stephan Kinsella\|March 2009}}
	* {{mb\|7194\|Argumentation Ethics: some brief notes on the concept\|Juan Fernando Carpio\|September 2007}}		* {{mb\|7194\|Argumentation Ethics: some brief notes on the concept\|Juan Fernando Carpio\|September 2007}}
			* [http://argumentationethics.wordpress.com/2011/12/25/argumentation-ethics/ Argumentation Ethics: User friendly introduction]

	* Other media		* Other media

173.245.49.231 at 18:18, 29 December 2011

2011-12-29T18:18:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 29 December 2011
Line 38:		Line 38:
	* {{wplink}}		* {{wplink}}

			<references/>

	{{stub}}		{{stub}}
	[[Category:Logic\|*]]		[[Category:Logic\|*]]
	[[Category:Concepts\|*]]		[[Category:Concepts\|*]]

141.101.70.180 at 18:15, 29 December 2011

2011-12-29T18:15:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:15, 29 December 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{TOC right}}		{{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~~.		'''Argumentation ethics''', [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]]'s "Argumentation Ethics" (1988) is a foundational defense of [[Libertarianism\|libertarian]] rights. Argumentation Ethics relies on the work of philosophers [[Jürgen Habermas]] and [[Karl-Otto Apel]]'s concept of [[Discourse Ethics]], and further on the [[deontological ethics\|deontological]] ethics of economist [[Murry Rothbard]]. Hoppe 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 only it can be justified without contradiction. Hoppe's approach is a [[Praxeology\|praxeological]] examination of the act of discourse.

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

	~~===Hoppe~~'~~s Rationale===~~		<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>

	~~The rationale on behalf~~ of argumentation ~~ethics is found on page 334~~ of ~~Hoppe~~'~~s book~~ ''[[The ~~Economics and Ethics~~ of ~~Private Property~~]]''.		===Axiomatic Foundation===
			Hoppe notes that since [[scarcity]] exists, conflicts arise over the use of [[Rivalry (economics)\| rivalrous goods]] between different agents. Agents can then choose to resolve their conflicts in a non violent way by engaging in argumentation. Therefore presupposed in the act of argumentation are norms contingent with the goal of non-violent conflict resolution. Among these are "''[[language]] has objective meaning''", "''Truth claims are preferable to false claims''" and "''claims must be justified''". These norms Hoppe terms the [[A priori and a posteriori\|apriori]] of argumentation (APoA). The denial of norms presupposed in the act of argumentation constitutes a [[performative contradiction]], thereby voiding the argument of meaning. Hoppe shows that any moral justification for rules of human conduct must take place in an argument, as the very act of the denial of this assertion implies the denier is engaged in an argument.

	~~<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~~>		===Non-Aggression Principle===
			Hoppe argues that only universal norms are consistent with the APoA, as [[double standard\|arbitrary categorical distinctions]], are not objectively justifiable. 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 full [[self-ownership]] are inconsistent with argumentation. Hoppe then shows that since the resolution of conflicts over external [[resources]] must also be objectively justifiable in a conflict avoiding way, only the establishment of an original objective link vis a vis original [[appropriation]] (i.e. [[homesteading principle\|homesteading]]) is consistent with argumentation. From these Hoppe concludes that only the non aggression principle of self ownership and [[John Lock\|Lockean]] homesteading can be justified in an argument without an implied performative contradiction<ref>http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty.pdf</ref>.

	==~~Criticisms~~==		===Reception and Criticism===
			Many modern libertarian scholars have accepted Hoppe's argument, among them [[Murray Rothbard]]<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard47.html</ref>, [[Walter Block]], [[David Gordon]], and [[Stephan Kinsella]]. Economists [[Bob Murphy]] and [[Gene Callahan]] have expressed criticism<ref>mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf</ref>. Stefan 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>.

	~~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.		Another 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.

	==See also==		==See also==

Pestergaines: +link

2011-09-10T22:23:40Z

+link

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:23, 10 September 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{TOC right}}		{{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.		'''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==		==Justification==

John James: added see also + links

2011-09-01T11:04:16Z

added see also + links

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:04, 1 September 2011
Line 16:		Line 16:

	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.		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.

			==See also==
			* ''[[The Economics and Ethics of Private Property]]''

	==Links==		==Links==
Line 24:		Line 27:
	* {{mb\|9610\|Revisiting Argumentation Ethics\|Stephan Kinsella\|March 2009}}		* {{mb\|9610\|Revisiting Argumentation Ethics\|Stephan Kinsella\|March 2009}}
	* {{mb\|7194\|Argumentation Ethics: some brief notes on the concept\|Juan Fernando Carpio\|September 2007}}		* {{mb\|7194\|Argumentation Ethics: some brief notes on the concept\|Juan Fernando Carpio\|September 2007}}

			* Other media
			** [http://mises.org/media/1507 "Law and Economics"] lecture by [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]], August 2005
			** [http://mises.org/media/3965 "Law and Economics"] lecture by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, July 2009
			** [http://mises.org/media/6538 "Property and the Social Order"] lecture by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, July 2011

	* {{wplink}}		* {{wplink}}


	{{stub}}		{{stub}}
	[[Category:Logic\|*]]		[[Category:Logic\|*]]
	[[Category:Concepts\|*]]		[[Category:Concepts\|*]]

John James: /* Links */ added

2011-07-28T04:54:06Z

Links: added

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:54, 28 July 2011
Line 20:		Line 20:
	* {{md\|5322\|Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide\|[[Stephan Kinsella]]\|May 2011}}		* {{md\|5322\|Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide\|[[Stephan Kinsella]]\|May 2011}}
	* {{mb\|16747\|The Power of Hoppe\|Stephan Kinsella\|May 2011}}		* {{mb\|16747\|The Power of Hoppe\|Stephan Kinsella\|May 2011}}
			* {{mb\|13557\|Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics, Again\|[[Jeffrey Tucker]]\|August 2010}}
			* {{mb\|11095\|Hülsmann on Argumentation Ethics\|Stephan Kinsella\|November 2009}}
			* {{mb\|9610\|Revisiting Argumentation Ethics\|Stephan Kinsella\|March 2009}}
			* {{mb\|7194\|Argumentation Ethics: some brief notes on the concept\|Juan Fernando Carpio\|September 2007}}

			* {{wplink}}

	{{stub}}		{{stub}}
	[[Category:Logic\|*]]		[[Category:Logic\|*]]
	[[Category:Concepts\|*]]		[[Category:Concepts\|*]]

John James: /* Links */added

2011-07-28T01:56:13Z

Links: added

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:56, 28 July 2011
Line 16:		Line 16:

	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.		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.

			==Links==
			* {{md\|5322\|Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide\|[[Stephan Kinsella]]\|May 2011}}
			* {{mb\|16747\|The Power of Hoppe\|Stephan Kinsella\|May 2011}}


	{{stub}}		{{stub}}
	[[Category:Logic\|*]]		[[Category:Logic\|*]]
	[[Category:Concepts\|*]]		[[Category:Concepts\|*]]

84.60.218.10 at 16:29, 3 February 2011

2011-02-03T16:29:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 3 February 2011
Line 18:		Line 18:

	{{stub}}		{{stub}}
	[[Category:~~Argumentation~~\|*]]		[[Category:Logic\|*]]
			[[Category:Concepts\|*]]

Justino: /* Justification */

2011-01-28T04:13:04Z

Justification

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:13, 28 January 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:54, 28 July 2011
Line 20:		Line 20:
	* {{md\|5322\|Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide\|[[Stephan Kinsella]]\|May 2011}}		* {{md\|5322\|Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide\|[[Stephan Kinsella]]\|May 2011}}
	* {{mb\|16747\|The Power of Hoppe\|Stephan Kinsella\|May 2011}}		* {{mb\|16747\|The Power of Hoppe\|Stephan Kinsella\|May 2011}}
			* {{mb\|13557\|Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics, Again\|[[Jeffrey Tucker]]\|August 2010}}
			* {{mb\|11095\|Hülsmann on Argumentation Ethics\|Stephan Kinsella\|November 2009}}
			* {{mb\|9610\|Revisiting Argumentation Ethics\|Stephan Kinsella\|March 2009}}
			* {{mb\|7194\|Argumentation Ethics: some brief notes on the concept\|Juan Fernando Carpio\|September 2007}}

			* {{wplink}}

	{{stub}}		{{stub}}
	[[Category:Logic\|*]]		[[Category:Logic\|*]]
	[[Category:Concepts\|*]]		[[Category:Concepts\|*]]