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.