A short argumentation ethics lecture I did on discord

Summary

This video explores Hoppe's argumentation ethics, focusing on the idea that peaceful argumentation presupposes norms like conflict avoidance. It explains the dialectic process, where opposing parties aim to resolve disputes through reason rather than violence. The speaker highlights contradictions in certain critiques of Hoppe's theory, arguing that violence cannot be justified within an argument. The video also covers common counterarguments and clarifies how these contradictions lead to ethical falsehoods. Overall, it presents a nuanced understanding of libertarian ethics derived from argumentation theory.

Takeaways

• 😀 Argumentation, or dialectic, involves two or more parties presenting premises in support of conflicting conclusions to find the truth through peaceful means.
• 🤔 Argumentation is not about simply convincing others but about reaching a synthesis and testing the rigor of claims through non-violent means.
• 😇 Violence or force is not a valid move in argumentation; it inherently opposes the peaceful nature of dialectic and thus fails as an argument.
• 🛑 A dialectic or performative contradiction occurs when someone argues that argumentation is pointless since engaging in the argument itself presupposes its value.
• 🔄 Norms of peaceful interaction, such as conflict avoidance, are presupposed in the act of argumentation, making aggression inherently contradictory to the process.
• ⚖️ Argumentation ethics forms the foundation for modern libertarianism, where initiating conflict is seen as incompatible with the dialectic process.
• ❌ One major counter-argument is that argumentation ethics only apply during arguments, but this fails since it implies a contradiction when proposing inconsistent norms inside and outside of an argument.
• 💥 Another counter-argument claims only certain body parts (like the mouth) are protected during argumentation, but this misses the point that the entire process must remain non-violent.
• 🤝 Participants in an argument must have control over their own bodies, and third-party control over an individual would negate the integrity of the dialectic process.
• 📜 The truth derived from argumentation is not purely analytical but dialectical, meaning it is based on consistency in ethical norms, not contradiction.

Q & A

What is the core idea behind Hoppe's 'argumentation ethics'?

Hoppe's 'argumentation ethics' is based on the idea that the act of argumentation presupposes certain norms, particularly the peaceful resolution of disputes. These norms must be followed by the very nature of argumentation, and any proposed ethic that contradicts them would result in a 'dialectical contradiction' and thus be considered false.

What is the role of argumentation in dispute resolution, according to the speaker?

Argumentation serves as a peaceful method of resolving disputes, where participants aim to reach a synthesis of truth through reasoned dialogue rather than force. It involves testing premises and conclusions, with each side gaining information, regardless of whether their argument is proven right or wrong.

How does the speaker define a 'performative contradiction'?

A 'performative contradiction' occurs when someone argues for a proposition that is contradicted by the very act of arguing itself. For example, arguing that 'argumentation is pointless' would contradict the act of engaging in argumentation, making it a dialectical falsehood.

How does argumentation presuppose norms, according to the speaker?

Argumentation presupposes norms such as the avoidance of violence and the peaceful resolution of disputes. These norms are inherent in the act of engaging in reasoned debate, as using violence would negate the purpose of argumentation, which is to convince through reason, not force.

What is one criticism of Hoppe's argumentation ethics mentioned in the script?

One criticism is that argumentation ethics only apply within the context of argumentation. For instance, while it may be contradictory to argue in favor of murder during a debate, it has not been proven that murder is objectively wrong outside the context of argumentation.

How does the speaker refute the criticism that argumentation ethics are limited to debates?

The speaker refutes this by stating that if conclusions drawn from argumentation only apply during debates, this would invalidate all conclusions. He argues that adopting different ethical positions inside and outside an argument would be an abdication of truth, and thus inherently contradictory.

What is the second criticism of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics discussed in the script?

The second criticism claims that Hoppe’s argument only prevents violence toward body parts used in argumentation, like the tongue, but not other parts like the legs. The speaker argues that this misses the point, as Hoppe’s argumentation ethics are about avoiding violence entirely, not just protecting specific body parts.

How does the speaker emphasize the importance of conflict avoidance in argumentation?

The speaker explains that argumentation inherently involves conflict avoidance because the act of engaging in a peaceful debate presupposes that violence is not a valid method for resolving disputes. Any norm that allows for violence would contradict the fundamental purpose of argumentation.

What is the significance of the norm of conflict avoidance in libertarian ethics?

In libertarian ethics, the norm of conflict avoidance is foundational, as it aligns with the non-aggression principle. Since argumentation requires peaceful means, proposing an ethic that endorses aggression or violence would contradict the very act of argumentation, thus invalidating such an ethic.

What resources does the speaker suggest for further study on argumentation ethics?

The speaker recommends a lecture by Lukas Dominic that simplifies Hoppe’s argument, a paper by Frank van Dun, which deepened the speaker's understanding of argumentation ethics, and resources by Stefan Kinsella, who has extensively covered the topic and its related discussions.

Outlines

00:00

🧠 Introduction to Argumentation and Ethics

The speaker begins by discussing argumentation, ethics, and his initial difficulty in understanding Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics. He reflects on how great thinkers sometimes struggle to communicate their ideas clearly. After extensive study, the speaker presents his interpretation of Hoppe's theory, aiming to make it accessible while preserving its original meaning. He defines argumentation (or dialectic) as a peaceful interaction where conflicting premises are debated to find the correct conclusion, focusing on truth rather than winning at all costs.

05:01

⚔️ The Nature of Argumentation and Its Boundaries

The speaker emphasizes that argumentation is not merely about winning but about reaching the truth through a peaceful exchange of ideas. He explains that argumentation requires testing premises, accepting correction, and advancing knowledge. Importantly, argumentation is not an abstract or detached process but involves human actions with real-world implications. The act of argumentation cannot exist in a normative vacuum, as it presupposes certain ethical norms, such as the rejection of violence. Violence, in fact, contradicts the very nature of argumentation, as it undermines the peaceful pursuit of truth.

10:02

🚫 Violence and the Presuppositions of Argumentation

Here, the speaker elaborates on why violence cannot be justified in argumentation. He argues that any attempt to use violence during a debate would indicate indifference to the truth, as one would be opting for physical force rather than reasoned discussion. The conclusion is that argumentation must always be peaceful, leading to the principle that non-aggression is presupposed in argumentation. This forms the basis for libertarian ethics, which emphasizes the avoidance of conflict and the importance of non-aggression as a core norm in ethical discourse.

15:02

📜 Addressing Counterarguments to Argumentation Ethics

The speaker discusses some common critiques of Hoppe's argumentation ethics, particularly from within libertarian circles. One critique suggests that ethics derived from argumentation only apply during debates, and not outside of them. The speaker refutes this, explaining that it would be absurd to claim that ethical conclusions reached through argumentation only hold during the argument itself. He also addresses the idea that only certain body parts involved in the argument are protected from violence, dismissing this as missing the point, which is that all violence contradicts the principle of peaceful dispute resolution.

🤔 Hypothetical Cases of Argumentation vs. Violence

In this section, the speaker examines a hypothetical scenario where someone is simultaneously engaging in argumentation with one person and committing violence against another. He argues that such behavior is inherently contradictory, as it violates the principle of conflict avoidance. By participating in argumentation, the individual implicitly endorses peaceful resolution, but by engaging in violence, they contradict this norm. The speaker stresses that this contradiction makes it impossible to justify violent behavior while adhering to the norms presupposed in argumentation.

🔍 Exploring the Limits of Argumentation and Ethical Consistency

The speaker engages with a question about whether one can selectively avoid conflict in argumentation based on strength or weakness. He argues that proposing a norm allowing violence in some cases but not others would be inconsistent and self-contradictory. Argumentation presupposes conflict avoidance in all cases, and selectively applying ethics based on circumstance or physical strength would undermine the integrity of the argument. The discussion touches on the challenge of deriving ethics from argumentation and the speaker's view that any ethic permitting aggression is inherently false.

📚 Kantian Logic and the Conclusion of the Argument

In this concluding section, the speaker ties his argument back to Kantian logic, explaining that if one option leads to a contradiction, the opposite must be true. He concludes that any ethic allowing violence cannot be justified through argumentation, as it would contradict the principles presupposed in the debate itself. He wraps up the discussion by stating that such contradictions make violent norms dialectically false, solidifying the ethical foundation of non-aggression as central to argumentation ethics.

Keywords

💡Argumentation

Argumentation refers to an interaction where two or more parties present premises to support opposing conclusions. In the context of the video, argumentation is highlighted as a peaceful means of resolving disputes by using logic and reasoning, rather than violence. The speaker contrasts this method with coercive tactics, emphasizing that the purpose of argumentation is truth-seeking, not just persuasion.

💡Dialectic

Dialectic, also known as argumentation, is the process of resolving contradictions through reasoned discussion. In the video, dialectic is framed as an essential method for engaging in peaceful interactions aimed at discovering truth. The concept is further used to describe norms that arise naturally from the act of argumentation, such as the avoidance of violence.

💡Performative contradiction

A performative contradiction occurs when someone’s actions contradict the content of their argument. The speaker uses this concept to explain how arguing that 'argumentation is pointless' would be self-defeating, as the very act of arguing presupposes that the process has value. This idea is applied in a broader sense to ethics and conflict resolution.

💡Peaceful interaction

Peaceful interaction is a core premise of argumentation, where disputants resolve conflicts through reasoning rather than physical coercion. The speaker stresses that for argumentation to be valid, it must be non-violent. Violent actions would contradict the purpose of reaching truth and resolving disputes through peaceful means.

💡Conflict avoidance

Conflict avoidance is presented as a norm presupposed in the act of argumentation. The speaker argues that violence cannot be a valid tactic in argumentation because it seeks to suppress dialogue rather than engage with it. Thus, avoiding conflict, especially through non-aggression, is key to any ethical framework derived from argumentation.

💡Normative void

A normative void refers to a hypothetical situation where no ethical or normative standards exist. The speaker argues that argumentation cannot exist in such a void because certain norms, such as non-violence and conflict avoidance, are inherent in the very act of engaging in argumentation. The concept is used to reinforce that ethical standards must be present for meaningful debate.

💡Libertarian ethics

Libertarian ethics, derived from Rothbard's natural law theory, emphasize individual rights and non-aggression. The speaker connects argumentation ethics to libertarianism, arguing that any ethic proposing violence or coercion would contradict the peaceful nature of argumentation, making it dialectically false.

💡Dialectical truth

Dialectical truth refers to truths that emerge from the process of argumentation. The speaker explains that such truths are not derived from axiomatic principles but from the norms inherent in dialectical reasoning. For example, the conclusion that conflicts should be avoided arises naturally from the fact that argumentation itself is a peaceful method of resolving disputes.

💡Ethical contradiction

An ethical contradiction occurs when someone advocates for a norm that inherently contradicts itself. In the video, the speaker explains how proposing an ethic that justifies violence during argumentation would be self-contradictory, as the act of argumentation presupposes peaceful resolution. Thus, any ethic that endorses violence is dialectically false.

💡Natural law theory

Natural law theory, as discussed in the video, refers to a framework in which ethical norms are derived from human nature and reason. Rothbard's version of natural law, which the speaker references, aligns with argumentation ethics because it advocates for non-aggression. The speaker suggests that argumentation itself supports natural law theory by rejecting violent means of resolving disputes.

Highlights

Introduction to Hoppe's argumentation ethics and the common issue of complex theories being difficult to communicate effectively.

Argumentation defined as a peaceful interaction aimed at resolving disputes through logic rather than violence.

Dialectic or performative contradictions arise when someone argues that argumentation is pointless, as the act of arguing presupposes its value.

Norms presupposed in argumentation include peaceful interaction and conflict avoidance, with violence being seen as incompatible with argumentation.

Reframing peaceful actions as non-aggressive actions, and recognizing that initiating conflicts violates the principles of argumentation.

The conclusion that conflicts should be avoided forms the foundation of modern Rothbardian natural law theory and libertarian ethics.

Critics, like Bob Murphy and Gene Callahan, argue that these conclusions only apply during argumentation and do not extend to other actions.

Refuting the argument that someone could hold different ethical beliefs inside and outside of argumentation, pointing out this would lead to inconsistent and contradictory ethics.

Explaining why violent actions, such as breaking someone's legs, are impermissible within the framework of peaceful argumentation.

Participants in argumentation must have exclusive control over their own bodies, or else the interaction is invalid as true argumentation.

Dialectic truths, as opposed to apodictic truths, are objective but derived through the process of argumentation, where contradictions reveal falsehoods.

Hoppe's argumentation ethics offer an objective foundation for libertarian ethics by showing how any contrary ethic leads to contradictions.

Additional resources, such as lectures by Lukas Dominic and writings by Frank van Dun, provide further clarification on argumentation ethics.

Addressing the hypothetical scenario of engaging in conflict with one person and argumentation with another, emphasizing that contradiction arises if one tries to justify both.

Clarification that while you can physically engage in violence, it is normatively wrong, as any ethic supporting such actions is self-contradictory and thus false.

Transcripts

so uh

today i'm talking about uh argumentation

ethics

and uh just had to make sure i wasn't

streaming that by mistake there

uh yeah so

hopper's argument from argument which is

the foundation of his argumentation

ethics has long been opaque to my eye it

always seemed to be a large word salad

of sorts that i just sort of took on

faith that it's probably true in some

way this has in my view been the result

of a common problem among our great

thinkers that they are excellent at

coming to novel novel and incredibly

impactful theories but they lack they

lack their related ability to

communicate these deep philosophies to

the lay person

uh oops

after an extraordinary amount of reading

and watching lectures about the topic i

finally come to what i think is an

interpretation that loses nothing from

the source material whilst being

comprehensible on a first listen

first i shall discuss exactly what an

argumentation also called a dialectic

even is

argumentation is defined as an

interaction wherein two or more parties

assert premises in sport of two or more

contradictory conclusions

with the goal of each party being to

find what the correct conclusion is

argumentation is specifically the method

of solving disputes over claims through

the use of peaceful means that is one

tries to convince their interlocutor

through the through the force of their

argument not through force of violence

i would also like to briefly go over

what argumentation is not

it is not simply about convincing others

that you're correct without paying any

mind to truth of the matter

that manner of speech is that of the

ideal ideological salesman who simply

wants to be seen as being correct

true dialectic is about reaching a

synthesis you articulate your premise in

order to your interlocutor as an

invitation for them to test its rigor if

they disprove your claim you you have

both gained information as you now both

know where the truth is not

if you instead prove

sorry

if you instead prove your claim you now

both know where the truth is no matter

what you gain information

it should also be noted that

argumentation is not simply free

floating propositions with no commit

with no connected proposer it is a human

action requiring the use of scarce means

towards the end of finding the truth of

the matter

further it has to be stated that

argumentation cannot exist in a

normative void

that is there are certain norms that are

presupposed in the very act of

argumentation for instance one could not

argue that argumentation is pointless

this would be called a dialectic or

performative contradiction

because to argue the norm that

argumentation is pointless would be

contradicted by the very positing of it

hence we denote this as a dialectic

falsehood

we hence revisit our definition of

argumentation to see if we can find a

norm more relevant to libertarian ethics

we noted the argumentation was a

peaceful interaction let's quickly make

that more concrete what would it mean to

say that argumentation need not be

peaceful

well it would mean that you don't care

about the truth because you'd be

choosing to violently attack your

opponent to solve the dispute rather

than allowing them to present counter

arguments

therefore violence must be must not be a

valid move in an argumentation we now

recognize that the set of peaceful

actions may be reframed as a set of

non-aggressive actions it is

specifically those actions which

initiate conflicts that are not peaceful

therefore conflict avoidance must be

another norm presupposed in the act of

argumentation

from this we can come to a dialectic

truth that conflicts ought to be avoided

but it is from this very foundation that

modern rothbardy natural law theory

arises

hence no ethic could be could possibly

be proposed that would contradict

libertarianism as the very proposal of

this ethic would be a dialectic

contradiction and thus a dialectic

falsehood

now this theory due to its often very

nuanced presentation has attracted many

critics including within libertarianism

bob murphy and gene callahan being prime

examples so i'd now like to go over some

of the more popular counter arguments to

the argument from argument

the first is that argument to it is that

this argument only applies during the

course of an argumentation that while

it's true that i cannot argue for an

ethic that murder is good say it has

never been nevertheless not been proven

that murder is bad outside of an

argument i would not contradict myself

to go about arguing then simply not

arguing whilst mono murder free spree

this counter argument fails on a number

of grounds first if it is true that the

conclusions reached an argumentation

only matter during the course of that

argumentation the same could be said of

all conclusions not only those related

to the argument from argument it's as if

i were to grant that it's true that

voluntary trades are mutually beneficial

but only when we are actually arguing

and that after the argument i revert

back to believing in the contrary that

they are not mutually beneficial

this would be a complete abdication of

truth and thus could not be done in an

argumentation

second when used by someone arguing a

dialectically false ethic even if we

grant them that their ethics can change

inside and outside of an argument this

leaves them with a position of stating

an inconsistent and therefore

contradictory ethic it is if i were to

say that murder is bad in one part of

space type but good in another i am

simultaneously taking the option the

opinion that murder is both good and bad

the second counter argument is that

argumentation ethics only precludes me

from being violent towards the body

parts that one is using in the course of

an argument it may be true the skeptic's

claim that i would contradict myself by

cutting my interlocutor's tongue out but

i would not by breaking his legs this

counterargument misses the mark in that

hopper's argument is not about which

body parts are being used it's about

solving the dispute through peaceful

rather than violent means it is

certainly true that breaking a man's

legs is violent therefore this is an

impermissible move in an argument

to finish up i would like to go over a

few other notes on this topic to

hopefully round out your understanding

first each participant in an argument

must be entitled to exclusive control

over their own body they cannot simply

be a mouthpiece for someone else imagine

if a and b are wanting to argue but a

has total control over b this would mean

that a is really just speaking to

himself as b would not be able to say

anything that wasn't preordained by a

further imagine if c has told a control

over b still b would not be arguing with

a rather a would be arguing with c

further i wish to clarify in what sense

this argument gives us truths we did not

derive from some apodictically true

axiom that you ought not aggress it is

not analytically true but it is

dialectically true which is another

objective foundation for truth as any

other ethic would be contradictory and

thus false

and lastly i'd like to go over a few

areas of further study in this

uh topic so that you can

expand your knowledge beyond what i've

given here

first

which i think is probably the best

lecture on the topic is one by lukas

dominic

and i'm going to be putting these links

in the chat and

in the description of the video when

that's up as well

so basically he

sort of translates hopper's famous

speech on the topic into more

um

easy to understand terms and kind of

gives you an almost introduction to that

speech so i think this one should really

be watched first and then you can

obviously watch the famous one by hopper

further there's also this paper by frank

van dun which is the first place where i

really started to grasp

the importance of argumentation ethics

and why it is true and lastly uh stefan

kinsell has many many resources on

argumentation ethics and the entire

dialogue surrounding it

and all right

is there any questions on that

could you go over the first whole 15

minutes because i wasn't here for it if

i can watch the video afterwards you

can't

oh

hey sup man will you provide the notes

in the chat because i was trying to take

notes but couldn't

yeah sure i'll um upload the whole uh

thing on github and you can

see the entire script of it

also i've got

to just getting the links up for you now

as well

no possibility for economic calculation

all right and if that's uh

all there is i think where i'm good to

go

um

so

app question

yeah

so let's say i don't know you're

beating someone up because you're

robbing them because you want their

money let's say

and

so engaging in obvious aggression

initiating a conflict and then someone

comes up to you who's um appears very uh

physically strong and says i don't know

i

dislike your proposition for a tax

policy engage in argumentation with me

right now i'm going to physically

assault you

and so there is on the other hand while

you're engaging in a conflict

um someone else who

is proposing to initiate conflict with

you or argumentation

and since they're you know appear that

they could physically beat you up then

you choose to engage in argumentation

with them

so you're engaging in conflict with one

person initiating conflict with one

person but engaging in argumentation

with another

well this would

oh sorry where are you still

yeah just go ahead

so yeah this would be

the same as like saying well i agree

with this inside the argument but not

outside it's

it would be a contradiction to both

accept that uh you should not initiate

conflict and reject that at the same

time so this person would uh

necessarily be wrong because they're

engaged in a contradiction

i suppose the sort of point is i don't

exactly see how it's necessarily a

contradiction

your expressed preference for

conflict avoidance in the case of

uh i want to avoid conflict with this

person because they seem to be able to

be able to physically beat me up

uh whereas i don't wish to avoid

conflict with another person which i

think i could beat her

i i don't i don't see how it's

necessarily a contradiction

when

you don't necessarily propose that you

when you engage in argumentation you

don't necessarily propose that you would

never wish to

engage in conflict well like uh consider

if somebody were to try and propose this

as an ethic they uh they say well i am

proposing that the correct ethic the

correct norm is that it's okay to engage

it's okay to attack people who are

weaker than you but not people who are

stronger with than you

if you were to try and propose that you

would be simultaneously presupposing the

ethic of conflict avoidance which says

it's never okay to go ahead and attack

someone so those two it's

it's the fact that your actions and your

words are in contradiction there so

you're still in a contradiction if you

were to try and propose this to anybody

so therefore it's an unproposable ethic

making it dialectically false

that's the point i don't i understand

how um argumentation

reactive augmentation

is it obviously

presupposes that you have a preference

for conflict avoidance in the case of

where the argumentation is occurring but

i don't see how necessarily

um

that stretches to all cases

quite simply the active augmentation in

a particular instance

well it's it's the same as uh saying

well uh you know i agree that this

conclusion is true and that we i cannot

possibly dispute that it's true but

nevertheless i'm going to go ahead and

continue believing in the negation

it's that would be

you would not be truly arguing there

because you don't actually care about

the truth of the matter you just want to

believe what you want to believe

i think the uh

i think the example of it would be

impossible to argue that argumentation

is pointless it's a lot easier to see

uh but it's the exact same logical

structure it's just that the logic

behind

uh

you know the norm of conflict avoidance

is far

uh more nuanced in its derivation which

is why it's less obvious

well it's on the other hand you of

course can argue

that argumentation is pointless

but in a arguing of b

a could potentially argue that arguing

with c is pointless

so but like you couldn't ever

categorically argue that argumentation

is pointless is my

is my point there and

it when you are engaging in

argumentation

the presupposition which is relevant is

that

you think it's better to solve disputes

peacefully rather than violently

uh it could not be any other way so

that would apply to

any given dispute if you were to try and

uh if you came along another dispute and

you just wanted to solve it through

violence instead of through peaceful

means

uh you could never justify

why you did that you could never justify

that it would be better to solve it

violently than peacefully there

we have any further questions or is

that good

i just want to clarify for the last time

like what you're saying here is

basically that

you can like physically you can do it

it's not against the laws of physics to

engage in argument in one

in one second and then go beat someone

else in another but like

you get

those things are inherently

self-contradictory you cannot make a set

of rules in which uh those things can

coexist

and you be

you uh you have to pick one you cannot

have both and still be considered

correct in your position right

yeah so this is the distinction between

normative laws and physical laws a

physical law you could never possibly

break it but in normative law you could

in fact break it but it would be wrong

to break and you're right it's the fact

that your presuppose you are

essentially proposing two

contradictory norms which means that you

have to be

wrong about ethics because you have a

contradiction it's a very kantian in

that sense where you say hey

if the only alternate if there are two

possibilities and one leads to a

contradiction we've proven that the uh

that the con counter to that must be

true

that is where you could go now

cool i'll stop recording now then