Anyone familiar with Argumentation Ethics and the similarities to UPB

[ChildrenOfTheSun]

I've been looking into some of the leftist/socialist critiques of Hoppe's argumentation ethics, which shares a number of similarities to UPB.

 

Look at this critique for example and tell me what you think:

 

http://www.justopia.org/exploding-argumentation-ethics.html

[percentient]

I can't tell if he's calling me a loud asshole in the first paragraph, but anyway it's difficult to take personally because my plumbing is fine. Looks like a core of his argument is to dispute the premise that argumentation is non-violent.

 

 

Here are just some purposes I can see for arguing:
 

1. Converting the other debater to your way of thinking solely using truth and relating to the others' desires (truth + violence-free)
2. Converting the other debater to your way of thinking by incorporating lies and mind hacks (neither truth, nor violence-free)
3. Sharpening your own debate skills (maybe truth, not related to conflict at all)
4. Converting the audience to your way of thinking by "winning" (probably not truth, probably not violence-free)
5. Converting the other debater with truth (or lies) because you realize it's easier than beating them up or using threats (maybe truth, intent isn't violence-free even if the action is)

 

1. Yes, let's aim for this.

 

2. The point of lying is to use the value of truth. So you have to presume the mutual value of truth, otherwise you're not lying.

 

3. This is the same as playing the devil's advocate. Also, when pretending to stab someone in a play, they don't actually die. There is no ethics involved here.

 

4. If the standard of winning is something else than truth, it's theater again.

 

5. Indeed, people use rhetoric to control others. It only works because you're appealing to universal standards

 

This doesn't refute everything he says, but he's making things more complicated than they need to be. Imagine someone coming back to you in a debate, saying "well, you can't really know if I'm lying or not, can you?? Gotcha!"

[percentient]

By the way there's a broken link to a defense of argumentation ethics by Kinsella, it's this one:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20130301134859/http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=312

[Nathan Metric]

Argumentation ethics is similar to UPB, but Hoppe comes to the wrong conclusion with his approach.

 

He saids any rational debate presupposes libertarian ethics when it would be more reasonable to say that any rational debate presupposes the moral significance of the truth and libertarian ethics and the principle of universality are merely deduced from the objective value of the truth.

 

The objective value of the truth is the foundation of UPB. In argumentation ethics, you get a hypothetical imperative of "libertarian ethics are necessary for rational debate" but it avoids giving a definite answer to what is THE objective value by which you measure all other values including the value of rational debate in the first place. Thus, Hoppe's argumentation ethics is incomplete and inferior to UPB.

 

Also the "is/ought" thing is completely hypocritical,

 

Typical Hume Argument

1)You are factually wrong for believing in objective morality (the IS)

2)Therefore, you ought not believe in this thing called objective morality (the ought).

 

The argument only works if the listener can derive an ought from an is.