Argumentation Ethics in Two Minutes - Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Keith Knight - Don't Tread on Anyone

4 Jun 201801:31

Summary

TLDRArgumentation ethics, developed in 1988 by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, asserts that arguing for ethical positions contrary to libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is logically incoherent. Hoppe, a professor emeritus at the University of Nevada Las Vegas and senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, argues that debate inherently presupposes non-violence. Thus, advocating for violence in resolving conflicts contradicts the norms required for argumentation, leading to a 'performative contradiction.' Responses to this theory have been mixed, particularly among Hoppe's colleagues at the Mises Institute.

Takeaways

🎶 The video contains a combination of music and laughter at certain points.
📜 Argumentation ethics is a libertarian political theory developed in 1988 by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
🏫 Hoppe is a professor emeritus at the University of Nevada Las Vegas and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
📚 The theory attempts to prove that any argument against libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is logically incoherent.
🤔 Responses to argumentation ethics have primarily come from Hoppe's colleagues at the Mises Institute, with mixed reception.
💬 Hoppe argues that both parties in a debate must accept certain norms, such as non-violence, to engage in argumentation.
⚖️ He claims that arguing for violence as a means of resolving conflicts creates a performative contradiction between one's actions and words.
🚫 Hoppe concludes that arguing against libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is logically inconsistent.
🔗 The core of his argument is that argumentation presupposes non-aggression, making arguments for violence self-defeating.
📖 The idea of performative contradiction plays a central role in Hoppe's defense of libertarian ethics.

Q & A

What is argumentation ethics?
-Argumentation ethics is a libertarian political theory developed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in 1988. It seeks to prove that arguing for any ethical position other than libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is logically incoherent.
Who developed argumentation ethics?
-Argumentation ethics was developed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a professor emeritus at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
What is the central claim of argumentation ethics?
-The central claim is that arguing for any ethical position that contradicts libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle results in a performative contradiction. This means that the argument itself violates the norms presupposed by argumentation, such as non-violence.
What is a performative contradiction?
-A performative contradiction occurs when someone's actions contradict the propositions they are arguing for. In the context of argumentation ethics, it refers to arguing for the use of violence while presupposing peaceful norms of debate.
Why does Hoppe argue that advocating violence is a performative contradiction?
-Hoppe argues that advocating for violence in a debate is a performative contradiction because argumentation inherently presupposes non-violent norms. By promoting violence, a person contradicts the peaceful nature of debate they are participating in.
What ethical positions are deemed logically incoherent by Hoppe's argumentation ethics?
-According to Hoppe, ethical positions that oppose libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle are logically incoherent, as they contradict the norms presupposed during the act of argumentation.
How has the argumentation ethics theory been received by others?
-The reception of argumentation ethics has been mixed, particularly among Hoppe's colleagues at the Mises Institute. Some have supported the argument, while others have expressed skepticism.
What norms does argumentation presuppose according to Hoppe?
-According to Hoppe, argumentation presupposes norms such as non-violence and mutual respect, as these are necessary for rational debate and discourse.
What would be an example of a performative contradiction in argumentation?
-An example of a performative contradiction would be someone arguing that violence is a valid means of resolving disputes while engaging in peaceful, rational debate. Their participation in the debate contradicts their advocacy of violence.
What does Hoppe mean by libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle?
-Libertarian anarchism advocates for a stateless society where individuals are free from coercion, while the non-aggression principle holds that initiating force or violence against others is morally wrong. Hoppe argues these are the only coherent ethical principles within argumentation.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Argumentation Ethics

This paragraph introduces argumentation ethics, a libertarian political theory developed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in 1988. Hoppe is a professor emeritus at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The theory posits that arguing for any ethical stance other than libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is logically flawed. It notes that responses to this theory have been mixed, particularly among Hoppe's colleagues at the Mises Institute.

🧐 Logical Inconsistencies in Ethical Arguments

Hoppe's theory suggests that during any debate, participants inherently accept certain norms, such as non-violence, to engage in meaningful discourse. He claims that advocating for violence as a means of resolving conflicts during an argument is a 'performative contradiction' because it goes against the norms presupposed in the act of argumentation itself. Therefore, arguing against libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is, according to Hoppe, logically incoherent.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Argumentation ethics

Argumentation ethics is a libertarian political theory developed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in 1988. The theory seeks to demonstrate that arguing against libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle leads to a logical contradiction. This is central to the video's message, as the script outlines how engaging in debate requires adherence to norms like non-violence, making any argument for the opposite self-contradictory.

💡Libertarianism

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that emphasizes individual liberty, free markets, and minimal government intervention. In the context of the video, it refers to the ethical foundation behind Hoppe's argument, where libertarian anarchism (the rejection of state power) is positioned as the only coherent stance within the framework of argumentation ethics.

💡Non-aggression principle

The non-aggression principle (NAP) is a fundamental tenet of libertarianism which holds that aggression against another person's property or body is inherently wrong. In the script, this principle is central to Hoppe's theory, where he argues that advocating for any use of violence contradicts the norms inherent in argumentation, making such positions incoherent.

💡Performative contradiction

A performative contradiction occurs when someone's actions contradict the content of their argument. In the video, Hoppe uses this concept to explain how arguing for violence while participating in non-violent debate is self-defeating. The idea is that one cannot simultaneously argue against the norms of non-violence while benefiting from those same norms in a debate.

💡Anarchism

Anarchism in this context refers to libertarian anarchism, which advocates for the absence of a state or government, favoring voluntary cooperation and non-coercive relationships. The video discusses how Hoppe’s argumentation ethics supports this anarchistic view by demonstrating the logical contradictions in arguing for coercive state actions.

💡Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is a research and educational institution that promotes libertarian economic and political ideas. The script mentions that responses to Hoppe's argumentation ethics have primarily come from his colleagues at this institute, indicating the mixed reception his theory has received among like-minded scholars.

💡Non-violence

Non-violence is a presupposed norm within the framework of argumentation ethics, according to Hoppe. In the script, it's explained that the act of engaging in debate itself assumes a commitment to peaceful discourse, making any argument that endorses violence inconsistent with the process of argumentation.

💡Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is the theorist behind argumentation ethics, a professor emeritus at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The video centers around his philosophical argument, which aims to demonstrate the logical incoherence of positions that contradict libertarian anarchism.

💡Ethics

Ethics refers to the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior or the conducting of an activity. In the context of the video, argumentation ethics is a subset of ethical theory, focusing specifically on the ethics of discourse. Hoppe's theory asserts that the norms of ethical debate inherently align with libertarian principles.

💡Logical contradiction

A logical contradiction occurs when two statements or propositions cannot both be true simultaneously. In the script, Hoppe’s argumentation ethics hinges on the idea that advocating for coercive or violent solutions while participating in peaceful argumentation leads to a logical contradiction, as the act of debating presupposes a commitment to non-aggression.

Highlights

Argumentation ethics is a libertarian political theory developed in 1988 by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a professor emeritus with the University of Nevada Las Vegas.

Hoppe is also a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Argumentation ethics aims to prove that arguing for any ethical position other than libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is logically incoherent.

The theory states that both parties in a debate propound propositions, which presupposes certain norms, including non-violence.

In argumentation, advocating for the use of violence to resolve conflicts creates a logical contradiction.

This contradiction is referred to as a 'performative contradiction,' where one's actions conflict with their words.

A performative contradiction occurs specifically when one argues for violence instead of debate or peaceful resolution.

Hoppe argues that advocating against libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is inherently contradictory.

Hoppe’s colleagues at the Mises Institute have provided mixed responses to the theory.

The non-aggression principle is central to libertarian anarchism, which Hoppe defends using argumentation ethics.

Argumentation ethics connects logical consistency in debates with the non-aggression principle.

By engaging in argumentation, participants must accept certain norms, including peaceful discourse.

The theory holds that debating in favor of violence undermines the very act of debate itself.

Hoppe's argument is that rejecting peaceful interaction during debates leads to a contradiction between one’s position and the act of debating.

The significance of the theory lies in its attempt to ground libertarian ethics in logical principles inherent in discourse.