UPB FAQ: How does Stef argue for the ideas of UPB?

[TDB]

<b>How does Stef argue for the ideas of UPB? </b></br>He uses the idea of a performative contradiction to derive some fundamental norms and principles, such as universality, that cannot be denied by persons using fair argument. Using those principles as a basis, he derives the concepts and tests that he calls UPB. Then he subjects various moral propositions to the tests.</br><b>What is a performative contradiction?</b></br>In order to disprove UPB, you must engage in argument. But the activity of argument itself presupposes certain norms and premises. Anyone who rejects those norms and premises cannot engage in argument and remain consistent. Their activity depends on facts that they deny, and hence their denial calls their own conclusions into question. A simple example of this would be for me to say out loud, "I am mute." The way that I made my claim contradicts its content. Similarly, any argument that used logic to conclude "therefore logic is worthless" qualifies as a performative contradiction. If you use a typewriter to type out the message, "I can't type," you contradict yourself in the act of expressing your idea. Hoppe and Habermas have used the performative contradiction in a similar way previously.

[OtherOtie]

Pretty good summation, but I wouldn't use the "I am dead" example, since it isn't logically contradictory in the same way that other such statements are. After all, we have notions of ghosts and spirits and what have you, so the dead could, in principle, speak. Your second example about the typewriter is much more appropriate, I think.

[TDB]

Pretty good summation, but I wouldn't use the "I am dead" example, since it isn't logically contradictory in the same way that other such statements are. After all, we have notions of ghosts and spirits and what have you, so the dead could, in principle, speak. Your second example about the typewriter is much more appropriate, I think.

Well, I would hate to discriminate against spiritualists, so I will switch it to "I am mute." Cool?

[labmath2]

The problem with argumentation ethics is that it is hard to pin down what it is. Can you list the conditions one has to accept to engage in arguments? Because performative contradiction relies on strict dependency of action performed on proposition put forward, sometimes things that appear to be performative contradiction aren't. A mute person could very well type into a machine that speaks for him or through some machine attached to his body saying "i am mute." While this is a kind of funny idea, it relies strictly of the meaning of the proposition (mute) and the action performed (speak/produce sound).

[TDB]

The problem with argumentation ethics is that it is hard to pin down what it is. Can you list the conditions one has to accept to engage in arguments?

I can't make an exhaustive list. The most relevant item on the list, for me, is the norm that participants in the argument will not coerce each other, or be under duress from someone else. I've been talking about this on another forum and reading up on Hoppe's argumentation ethics, and I may have a different approach than other people. I am tempted to go on and on about this, if you are interested. 

Because performative contradiction relies on strict dependency of action performed on proposition put forward, sometimes things that appear to be performative contradiction aren't.

That's a bit too abstract for me, I don't follow.

A mute person could very well type into a machine that speaks for him or through some machine attached to his body saying "i am mute." While this is a kind of funny idea, it relies strictly of the meaning of the proposition (mute) and the action performed (speak/produce sound).

Yes, obviously that would not be a performative contradiction. That is why I changed the FAQ entry to say "A simple example of this would be for me to say out loud, "I am mute.""