Political Theory

Re: Argumentation Ethics

hayekianxyz — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:31:56 GMT

Actually Lomasky's was not too bad either.

Re: Argumentation Ethics

nirgrahamUK — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:27:55 GMT

yeager is simply saying, assume someone doesnt have the right to own himself, how would argumentation ehtics help us to demonstrate that he does own himself. well, it cant, the premise says its impossible. in the context of the scenario posited 'a slave and his master argue'

how could any theory show that a slave was a self owner if we are told to stick to the facts which stipulate quite clearly that he isnt.

Re: Argumentation Ethics

Dbsafc — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:12:36 GMT

“Hoppe simply asserts, but does not demonstrate, a logical contradiction. Being emphatic and repetitious is simply not enough. A slave-owner and his slave might conceivably engage in an intellectual discussion, even about the moral status of slavery itself, without either necessarily falling into self-contradiction. I hope it is not necessary to spend time on this point.”

That is what I was referring to. I ask because it seems like a cavalier rebuttal. Yeager appears to be a careful researcher, and I notice that other thinkers in the Austrian community have praised his intellect. But I have also noted that he seems to be grinding an ax against many of his opponents.

Re: Argumentation Ethics

nirgrahamUK — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:03:34 GMT

one party cant be said to argue with another if the one does not conceptually acknowledge that the other has control of his own body.

if the other did not have control, there could be no argument, only monologue, talking aside from arguing.

Re: Argumentation Ethics

scineram — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:30:47 GMT

Stephen Forde:
What is crucial to AE is that interpersonal propositional exchange implies that both parties allow their opponent control over their own bodies without any interference, i.e. aggression or coercion.

How does it imply that the opponent should have control?

Re: Argumentation Ethics

hayekianxyz — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:43:25 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

As far as objections to AE go, that has to be one of the weakest I've seen yet.

All of the objections to Hoppe I've seen so far have been rather weak, with the exception of Rasmussen's.

Re: Argumentation Ethics

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:16:18 GMT

As far as objections to AE go, that has to be one of the weakest I've seen yet.

Re: Argumentation Ethics

Knight_of_BAAWA — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:08:53 GMT

The problem for Yeger is this: how did the "master" by right come to "own" the slave?

Re: Argumentation Ethics

Dbsafc — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:00:45 GMT

I was thinking of starting a thread to ask a question on this very topic.

I was reading the 50^th Anniversary Tribute to Human Action from Hillsdale College, and read through Leland Yeager’s article on Mises and utilitarianism. I found it to be a fascinating and challenging work for a novice such as me (though I think it has problems). He attacks natural rights theories and defends utilitarian values. This need not concern us here. But he also takes a swipe at Hoppe. I am not familiar with much of Hoppe’s writing, though I have heard of the argumentation ethic before. I don’t think I have to base to tackle his work yet.

He spends about a page summarizing the argument and how Rothbard received it. Then, he devotes a small paragraph to debunking it. I don’t know if the text is available online, so I’ll paraphrase to the best of my recollection.

Basically, Hoppe’s theory ultimately fails because a master and a slave may engage in an argument with each other over the morality of slavery without engaging in contradiction. Then Yeager states that he hopes no further discussion on this topic is necessary. And that is it.

I mean, Yeager raises what seems (to me) like an obvious objection. At least, it seems obvious in light of how I have heard the argumentation ethic stated before. Surely a thinker of Hoppe’s caliber would have anticipated this counter, or have provided a response?

I hope I have not misrepresented Yeager or, worse, built a straw man, but I have relayed his thoughts to the best of my memory. It may be that I overlooked a key point.

Re: Argumentation Ethics

Stephen — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:26:55 GMT

dsimo04:
By asking ought I own my body implies first that someone else can control it at the same level as I do, and also that I am able to cede this control to another.

It doesn't necessarily imply that. If someone owns someone else's body, it just means that they have control over it. That doesn't mean the same thing as direct control. They could establish control indirectly through coercion, or confinement.

What is crucial to AE is that interpersonal propositional exchange implies that both parties allow their opponent control over their own bodies without any interference, i.e. aggression or coercion.

Re: Argumentation Ethics

dsimo04 — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:28:49 GMT

Stranger:

GilesStratton:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Yes.

But how does my arguing show anything other than control over my own body, which is different from ownership of.

Arguing shows that you allow your interlocutor control over his body, otherwise he could not participate in the argument and your act would be pointless.

Also an "ought" argument implies an ability to make it so, or not. By asking ought I own my body implies first that someone else can control it at the same level as I do, and also that I am able to cede this control to another.

Re: Argumentation Ethics

Stranger — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:40:05 GMT

GilesStratton:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Yes.

But how does my arguing show anything other than control over my own body, which is different from ownership of.

Arguing shows that you allow your interlocutor control over his body, otherwise he could not participate in the argument and your act would be pointless.

Re: Argumentation Ethics

nazgulnarsil — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:56:12 GMT

words are ethically neutral. only actions can be judged.

Re: Argumentation Ethics

Knight_of_BAAWA — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:43:28 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:
I've been clear and on-message.

liberty student:
How clear one has been is something determined by the listener

Is there some reason you have a problem with me? If so, just message me and we can figure it out, ok.

Re: Argumentation Ethics

Jon Irenicus — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:26:41 GMT

How the Is/ought gap is nonsense.

It isn't, but all it really shows is that, as a matter of deduction, if facts are not laden with values, then no value can be deduced from them. That's it. Whether facts are so laden or not is an ontological question, not one proponents of the "ought-is" gap can assume without argument. So it's valid in its weaker sense, absolutely question-begging in its stronger sense.