| Revision as of 21:41, 8 September 2015 editMeUser42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,103 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:44, 8 September 2015 edit undoMeUser42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,103 edits →Responses from colleagues: Long isn't lvmi e.g.Next edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| ==Responses from colleagues== | ==Responses from colleagues== | ||
| Various responses to Hoppe's argument came from |
Various responses to Hoppe's argument came from libertarian philosophers.<ref name="blog.mises" /> Some of them accepted his argument, among them attorney Kinsella<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=312 |title=Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan |last=Kinsella |first=Stephan |date=19 September 2002 |publisher=Anti-State.com |accessdate=9 February 2012}}</ref> and economists ] and ],<ref name=anarcho-lockean>{{cite web |url=https://mises.org/daily/4629 |title=Beyond Is and Ought |first=Murray N. |last=Rothbard |date=November 1988|publisher=] |accessdate=14 October 2012}}</ref> who called it "a dazzling breakthrough for political philosophy in general and for libertarianism in particular," adding "he has managed to transcend the famous is/ought, fact/value dichotomy that has plagued philosophy since the days of the Scholastics..."<ref name=anarcho-lockean/> | ||
| Mises Institute economists ] and ] rejected Hoppe's argument.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Murphy |first1=Robert P. |last2=Callahan |first2=Gene |date=Spring 2006 |title=Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: A Critique |journal=] |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=53–6 |publisher= |doi= |url=https://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf |accessdate=9 February 2012 }}</ref> The late ] David Osterfeld, an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute, also rejected Hoppe's argument in an essay to which Hoppe subsequently responded.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/osterfeld_hoppe.pdf |title=Comment on Hoppe / Comment on Osterfeld |last= |first= |year= 1988 |publisher=Austrian Economics Newsletter |accessdate=14 October 2012}}</ref> Walter Block has since defended the argument<ref>https://mises.org/system/tdf/22_1_31.pdf?file=1&type=document</ref> and Marian Eabrasu rebuts a wide range of criticisms.<ref>http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/article/2009/lp-1-20.pdf</ref> | Mises Institute economists ] and ] rejected Hoppe's argument.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Murphy |first1=Robert P. |last2=Callahan |first2=Gene |date=Spring 2006 |title=Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: A Critique |journal=] |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=53–6 |publisher= |doi= |url=https://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf |accessdate=9 February 2012 }}</ref> The late ] David Osterfeld, an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute, also rejected Hoppe's argument in an essay to which Hoppe subsequently responded.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/osterfeld_hoppe.pdf |title=Comment on Hoppe / Comment on Osterfeld |last= |first= |year= 1988 |publisher=Austrian Economics Newsletter |accessdate=14 October 2012}}</ref> Walter Block has since defended the argument<ref>https://mises.org/system/tdf/22_1_31.pdf?file=1&type=document</ref> and Marian Eabrasu rebuts a wide range of criticisms.<ref>http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/article/2009/lp-1-20.pdf</ref> | ||
Revision as of 22:44, 8 September 2015
Argumentation ethics is a libertarian political theory developed in 1988 by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a Professor Emeritus with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas College of Business and Ludwig von Mises Institute Senior Fellow. Hoppe says his theory proves that arguing for any ethical position other than property rights (libertarian anarchism) cannot be consistantly forwarded in a controverserial arguemnt. Hoppe's argument is value-free and is constructed analyticly. Among libertarian philosophers the argument's reception has been mixed.
Hoppe states that because both parties in a debate propound propositions in the course of argumentation, and because argumentation presupposes various norms including non-violence, the act of propounding a proposition that negates the presupposed norms of argumentation is a logical contradiction between one's actions and one's words (this is called a performative contradiction). Specifically, to argue that violence should be used to resolve conflicts (instead of argumentation) is a performative contradiction. Thus, Hoppe argues that arguing against libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is logically incoherent.
Responses from colleagues
Various responses to Hoppe's argument came from libertarian philosophers. Some of them accepted his argument, among them attorney Kinsella and economists Walter Block and Murray Rothbard, who called it "a dazzling breakthrough for political philosophy in general and for libertarianism in particular," adding "he has managed to transcend the famous is/ought, fact/value dichotomy that has plagued philosophy since the days of the Scholastics..."
Mises Institute economists Bob Murphy and Gene Callahan rejected Hoppe's argument. The late Austrian Economist David Osterfeld, an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute, also rejected Hoppe's argument in an essay to which Hoppe subsequently responded. Walter Block has since defended the argument and Marian Eabrasu rebuts a wide range of criticisms.
Ludwig Von Mises Institute Senior Fellow and Auburn University philosopher Roderick Long reconstructed the argument in deductively valid form, specifying four premises on whose truth the argument's soundness depends. Long goes on to argue that each premise is either uncertain, doubtful, or clearly false. He summarizes his views by stating:
I don’t think there’s any reason to reject out of hand the kind of argument that Hoppe tries to give; on the contrary, the idea that there might be some deep connection between libertarian rights and the requirements of rational discourse is one I find attractive and eminently plausible. But I am not convinced that the specific argument Hoppe gives us is successful.
See also
References
- Hoppe, Hans-Hermann; Murray N. Rothbard; David Friedman; Leland Yeager; David Gordon; Douglas Rasmussen (November 1988). "Liberty Symposium" (PDF). Liberty. 2.
- ^ Kinsella, Stephan (March 13, 2009). "Revisiting Argumentation Ethics". Mises Economics Blog. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
number of thinkers weighed in, including Rothbard, ... Conway, ... D. Friedman, ... Machan, ... Lomasky, ... Yeager, ...Rasmussen, and others....
- Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (September 1988). "The Ultimate Justification of Private Property" (PDF). Liberty. 1: 20.
- Kinsella, Stephan (19 September 2002). "Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan". Anti-State.com. Retrieved 9 February 2012.
- ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (November 1988). "Beyond Is and Ought". Mises.org. Retrieved 14 October 2012.
- Murphy, Robert P.; Callahan, Gene (Spring 2006). "Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: A Critique" (PDF). Journal of Libertarian Studies. 20 (2): 53–6. Retrieved 9 February 2012.
- "Comment on Hoppe / Comment on Osterfeld" (PDF). Austrian Economics Newsletter. 1988. Retrieved 14 October 2012.
- https://mises.org/system/tdf/22_1_31.pdf?file=1&type=document
- http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/article/2009/lp-1-20.pdf
- Long, Roderick T. "The Hopperiori Argument".
Further reading
- Van Dun, Frank (January 1, 2009). "Argumentation ethics and the philosophy of freedom". Libertarian Papers. Retrieved May 8, 2013.
External links
- Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide
- Collection of publications regarding argumentation ethics
- The A priori of Argumention, video introduction by Hoppe
- The Social Theory of Hoppe, on-line course by Stephan Kinsella.
- Eabrasu, Marian (2009). "A Reply to the Current Critiques Formulated Against Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics". Libertarian Papers. 1.