A short argumentation ethics lecture I did on discord
Summary
TLDRThis 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
🧠 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.
⚔️ 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.
🚫 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.
📜 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Argumentation
💡Dialectic
💡Performative contradiction
💡Peaceful interaction
💡Conflict avoidance
💡Normative void
💡Libertarian ethics
💡Dialectical truth
💡Ethical contradiction
💡Natural law theory
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
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
Argumentation Ethics in Two Minutes - Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Introducing Deontological/Kantian Ethics
Introducing COMPLEX Argument (AP Lang Question 3)
Curso completo, Raciocínio Lógico, Concursos Públicos 2019 - Prof Pedro Evaristo, Aula 11
What is a counterargument
AP English Language: Unit 9 Understanding the Complexities of Argumentation
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)