Argumentation or Discourse ethics?

I think all here know about Hoppe's Argumentation ethics, but I don't know if you are familiar with his teacher's formulation of Discouse ethics.

I personally like to call it Communication, or Justification ethics.

It's interesting how teacher and student take the same framework but have so different conclusions.

Hoppe says that communication implies NAP and private property; but the ethical implications of the notion of performative contradiction, according to Habermas, are individual autonomy, which implies a duty of no imposition of harm (which is much wider then NAP), and power equality (or power neutrality), which implies lack of hierarchy and lack of economic inequality.

IMO, it is more likely that a priori norms of communication imply  ('libertarian') socialism then capitalism. The norms that Habermas mentioned seem to more clearly be the correct concepts of a priori norms of communication.

There's two types of people: those who agree with argumentation ethics because it justifies the beliefs they already hold, and those who disagree with arguementation ethics no matter what it claims to justify.

The reason that Habermas and Hoppe reach near opposite conclusions is because discourse ethics can be used to justify almost anything.

Discourse ethics, as Habermas calls it, is just an extension of communicative reality (or communicative rationality) to the sphere of ethics. Communicative reality has within itself e.g. an a priori norm of realism (within the sphere of epistemology or philosophy of perception), that is- you can't argue epistemological relativism (/nihilism) without commiting a performative contradiction. When you argue anything, you perfomatively accept a number of norms, like that you exist, and that so do other people, world, language, etc, etc.

Likewise with communicative ethics. It cannot be said to justify everything, it has some norms, it's a matter of coming to a conclusion of what are the correct definitions of those norms.

When you argue anything, you perfomatively accept a number of norms, like that you exist, and that so do other people, world, language, etc, etc.

Ummm... So when I play a video game, I performatively accept the game world is real? Riiiight...

So you expect me to believe that when you "play a video game" you stare at a blank screen and press random buttons? If the game world isnt real then how could you "play" it?

Of no relevance to whether the world we life in is real or not.

So you expect me to believe that when you "play a video game" you stare at a blank screen and press random buttons?

I never said that.

If the game world isnt real then how could you "play" it?

Not sure, what do you mean by that. The simulator is as real as the rest of real world (which does not mean it is absolutely real), but the world it simulates is, well, just that - simulated. I do not (necessarily) believe the characters have deep feelings or free will just because I engage in conversations with them.

I never said that.

in that case you performatively presuppose the reality of the existence and particular conditions of the game you are playing.

Not sure, what do you mean by that. The simulator is as real as the rest of real world (which does not mean it is absolutely real),

I'm not sure what you mean by "absolutely real." can you explain what you mean?

but the world it simulates is, well, just that - simulated.

thats a tautology. By engaging the simulation, you affirm the existence of simulations. If you were to tell me that you used a simulation to prove that simulations dont exist, I would say your statement is self-refuting. If you used the process of argumentation to advance an argument that argumentation didnt exist, I would say the same thing.

I do not (necessarily) believe the characters have deep feelings or free will just because I engage in conversations with them.

no one is suggesting that. Likewise no one is suggesting that aggression doesnt exist, simply that it cant be logically justified. Quite naturally, this is only significant to people who care about whether their actions should be justified. But it helps to dissolve the pretense of justification of aggression.

Ok, gentlemen, I have to admit that our approaches to gaming (and I guess to ontology) are quite different. While I may suspend my disbelief for a better enjoyment of the game, I never have problems separating the simulated world from the "real" one (the one that embeds the simulator). By the same token, I do not see how my fancy to interact with the "real" world proves anything but my mind exist. You may call me a sceptic, I guess. Should we bring up the Matrix, the brain in a vat, and whole Cartesian jazz?

BTW, by "absolutely real" I mean "real as believed into by realists" (as opposed to sceptics).

Ok, gentlemen, I have to admit that our approaches to gaming (and I guess to ontology) are quite different. While I may suspend my disbelief for a better enjoyment of the game, I never have problems separating the simulated world from the "real" one (the one that embeds the simulator).

your fixation on this topic is most troubling. No is suggesting that you "have problems separating the simulated world from the "real" one."

By the same token, I do not see how my fancy to interact with the "real" world proves anything but my mind exist.

because your mind is "interacting" with something else. You implied it yourself. "interaction" presupposes two parties to an act.

You may call me a sceptic, I guess. Should we bring up the Matrix, the brain in a vat, and whole Cartesian jazz?

bring up whatever you like, I certainly dont see the relevance of any matrix-type argument. If youre a brain in a vat, is the simulator somehow supposed to deny causality? So I'm not allowed to use logic? Again, I dont see the relevance.

BTW, by "absolutely real" I mean "real as believed into by realists" (as opposed to sceptics).

well let me ask you this, are ideas "absolutely real"?

I suggest we make this discussion more specific. Pick any statement of the argumentation ethics you would like to defend.

"aggression (initiation of violence or misappropriation of property) cannot be rationally justified byt the aggressor."

"aggression (initiation of violence or misappropriation of property) cannot be rationally justified byt the aggressor."

I see at least these arguments:

1. The aggressor rationally proves that he is superior to the victim ("divine right").
2. The aggressor rationally proves that aggression was for the greater common good ("bleeding heart").
3. The aggressor rationally proves that allocation to the fittest is justified ("might makes right").

The victim may choose to not accept the logic of the aggressor, but the same applies to any argument in favor of NAP.

BTW, I am not against NAP, I just do not see how it can be "proved" from the undisputable axioms using undisputable laws of inference.

The aggressor rationally proves that he is superior to the victim ("divine right").

it would be interesting to see someone do that. The act of engaging in discourse presupposes a conversation between equals.

The aggressor rationally proves that aggression was for the greater common good ("bleeding heart").

it would be interesting to see someone do that. They would have to define and justify the notion of "the common good." the individual good is already presupposed by human action.

The aggressor rationally proves that allocation to the fittest is justified ("might makes right").

it would be interesting to see someone do that. If the aggressor is both more fit, and justified, one wonders why they attempted to engage in discourse in the first place. I feel as though this argument would result in contradiction as well, although I cant say for sure until someone makes it.

The victim may choose to not accept the logic of the aggressor, but the same applies to any argument in favor of NAP.

the "logic" of the aggressor may not be actual logic.

BTW, I am not against NAP, I just do not see how it can be "proved" from the undisputable axioms using undisputable laws of inference.

arguments to the contrary result in contradiction. NAP is the only ethic that is justifiable through discourse.

The act of engaging in discourse presupposes a conversation between equals.

I do not see, how one follows from the other.

They would have to define and justify the notion of "the common good."

Easy, one approach is "what is preferred by more people". If two people prefer to take your money, this is justified because it makes two persons happy and only one person unhappy.

If the aggressor is both more fit, and justified, one wonders why they attempted to engage in discourse in the first place.

To make the aggressor feel even better by making the victim "see the light"? Oh, and the argument itself could go like - the more fit person can put the "stolen" resources to a better use, thus reducing waste.

I do not see how any of these arguments is less logical than the arguments for NAP. I think NAP should be marketed on its moral or utilitarian merits, not because it's the only logically sound outlook.

I do not see, how one follows from the other.

well do you try to negotiate a settlement with a roach before you spray it with roach poison? The only reason you would engage me in conversation is if you, for whatever reason, actually cared about what my responses to you are.

Easy, one approach is "what is preferred by more people".

preferences are only revealed through action. Your willingness to engage me in dialogue reveals a preference for dialogue over violence. If "more" people preferred to reappropriate my property then they would do so. By conversing with me and proposing that the reappropriation of my property is "for the greater good" youre actually asking me to consent to this notion, thereby establishing that my consent is important to you. Any assertion to the contrary results in contradiction.

If two people prefer to take your money, this is justified because it makes two persons happy and only one person unhappy.

how is that justified? Youve responded to my request for justification with a bare assertion.

To make the aggressor feel even better by making the victim "see the light"?

yes, revealing that the feelings, desires, and even consent of the other party are more significant than the aggressor's simple desire for more stuff.

Oh, and the argument itself could go like - the more fit person can put the "stolen" resources to a better use, thus reducing waste.

"better" and "waste" are both value judgments, therefore subjective. You must attempt to justify those evaluations, as argumentation ethics is about what claims you can justify, not what claims you can make.

I do not see how any of these arguments is less logical than the arguments for NAP.

thats because they are just bare assertions, they arent proper arguments, they dont follow from any premises and therefore are not justified.

I think NAP should be marketed on its moral or utilitarian merits, not because it's the only logically sound outlook.

thats a false dichotomy, as one can do all of the above. And let me ask you this, you dont consider a self-contradictory argument to be self-defeating? Can I therefore say "I have spent a lot of time thinking, and I have decided that humans do not think or decide anything"?

well do you try to negotiate a settlement with a roach before you spray it with roach poison? The only reason you would engage me in conversation is if you, for whatever reason, actually cared about what my responses to you are.

I can well imagine a master indulging in a conversation with his slave, without the master considering himself equal to the slave.

Your willingness to engage me in dialogue reveals a preference for dialogue over violence.

It only demonstrates a preference of both stealing the resource and obtaining a social approval over just stealing the resource. I do not see how this proves that stealing was unjustified.

revealing that the feelings, desires, and even consent of the other party are more significant than the aggressor's simple desire for more stuff

Again, consent of the other party is NOT revealed to be more significant than simple desire for more stuff. What is revealed is preference for both over one.

You must attempt to justify those evaluations, as argumentation ethics is about what claims you can justify...

Sorry, could you point at what point did I subscribed to argumentation ethics?

thats a false dichotomy, as one can do all of the above.

Marketing nonsense as a bullet-proof proof discredits the whole message, thus NAP is better of without appeals to being the only logically sound principle.

Can I therefore say "I have spent a lot of time thinking, and I have decided that humans do not think or decide anything"?

Of course you can, in fact you did. On a serious side, this utterance will just prompt me to understand where exactly the miscommunication happened - maybe two instances of "think" refer to different concepts, or you do not consider yourself a human, or you missed a couple of quantifiers (some/all/always/sometimes).

BTW, so far you didn't attempt to actually prove anything, but instead you invited me to disprove your statement. As I believe you are well aware of, in any sufficiently rich consistent theory there are statements that cannot be decided. Therefore, even if I could not disprove your statement did not mean you could prove it. So I suggest you try and do.

 

I can well imagine a master indulging in a conversation with his slave, without the master considering himself equal to the slave.

the existence of confused people, or your ability to imagine confused people, does not mean that we must also be confused.

It only demonstrates a preference of both stealing the resource and obtaining a social approval over just stealing the resource. I do not see how this proves that stealing was unjustified.

I dont care what terms you use, you demonstrated a preference for consensual acquisition over nonconsensual aquisition. If you didnt prefer to get my agreement, we wouldnt have the conversation. Aaand, its not justified because you didnt justify it, thats an ever-present fact.

Again, consent of the other party is NOT revealed to be more significant than simple desire for more stuff. What is revealed is preference for both over one.

no, because you chose conversation over assault. You didnt choose to have a conversation while assaulting me.

Sorry, could you point at what point did I subscribed to argumentation ethics?

is this supposed to be a trick question? "When you engaged me in dialogue," is the answer. I said aggression couldnt be justified. You said "well what if they say blah blah blah." I said thats not a justification its a claim in need of justification. Youre supposed to be trying to justify aggression, not just making bare assertions.

Marketing nonsense as a bullet-proof proof discredits the whole message, thus NAP is better of without appeals to being the only logically sound principle.

why dont you take a few minutes and try to understand AE before you deride it as "nonsense."

Of course you can, in fact you did. On a serious side, this utterance will just prompt me to understand where exactly the miscommunication happened - maybe two instances of "think" refer to different concepts, or you do not consider yourself a human, or you missed a couple of quantifiers (some/all/always/sometimes).

So do you agree that some statements can be self-refuting?

BTW, so far you didn't attempt to actually prove anything, but instead you invited me to disprove your statement. As I believe you are well aware of, in any sufficiently rich consistent theory there are statements that cannot be decided. Therefore, even if I could not disprove your statement did not mean you could prove it. So I suggest you try and do

I think I have sufficiently defended my chosen statement. You asked what claim I wanted to defend, I picked one and you havent cast any doubt on it whatsoever, would you now like to change the terms of the discussion?

I think I have sufficiently defended my chosen statement. You asked what claim I wanted to defend, I picked one and you havent cast any doubt on it whatsoever, would you now like to change the terms of the discussion?

I demonstrated some hypothetical arguments justifying aggression. You called them bare assertions. Now I want to turns tables on you - please provide your arguments, and I will call them bare assertions. This will demonstrate how NAPis not anyhow unique.

I demonstrated some hypothetical arguments justifying aggression. You called them bare assertions.

they were bare assertions. Your arguments did not justify anything, they didnt appeal to any premises, they didnt reach any conclusions, you just asserted your claim as if thats all thats necessary. I dont think you have a sufficient understanding of argumentation or discourse for you to discuss what such an activity presupposes.

Now I want to turns tables on you - please provide your arguments, and I will call them bare assertions.

I'm not interested in such an activity.

This will demonstrate how NAPis not anyhow unique.

I dont think the activity you suggested would demonstrate such a thing.