That is just another misrepresentation. Nobody is saying that respect of natural rights means that you also need to write a treatise on morals. Some people abide by natural rights because of both moral intuitions and basic common sense. What you snarkily call wordplay are attempts at rational arguments - arguments which you seem to dismiss because you ‘feel’ they are not … touchy-feely enough ? Or are you using logic to judge them ?
What you feel is wholly irrelevant. This is a rational discussion, not an exchange of feelings.
If Hoppe’s conclusions are correct, and I don’t see anything wrong with his reasoning, then being fully moral, in fact, does involve abiding by the conclusions. It would have to.
Or it could be result of moral intuition. Or it could be the result of learning which principles are the most expedient for social conduct and eventually valuing them for their own sake. I don’t know all the possibilities, but I’m sure it the “by accident” doesn’t necessarily follow. Nor has Hoppe ever argued so.
I don’t think either of them argued anything like that. I also don’t see how either of their systems imply that. In fact, both of them, as well as mises, thought that property and law are natural social developments. They are merely providing justification for institutions already established, and established without elaborate justifications.
Right, but Hoppe still doesn’t manage to say why one “should” not aggress. Let’s say Hoppe is correct and his arguments are valid, if that is so then Hoppe still can’t tell me not to murder any more than he can tell me not to add 2 and 2 and get 5. It seems to me that “right” and “wrong” are entirely missing from Hoppe’s ethics.
argumentation ethics, shows how immorality can’t be justified. you can do immoral things. who would deny it. its physically possible. if it cant be justified, then it you do it without justification. if you wish to argue about morality and be right, then you must make correct moral arguments, not wrong ones like ‘i can kill innocents’. thats a big fail in making justified arguments, etc. just as you would fail in doing math ‘correctly’ if you wrote down 2+2=5. you can do it, but it is mathematically wrong. (unless you’ve adopted some weird notation!)
But so what if I can’t argue it? That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t go and do it, unless you assume that people ought not to do things that they can’t argue in favour of. But nowhere have I seen such a premise in Hoppe’s argument and I don’t believe you can support it.
I think individuals can only be persaded if they govern their action by principle rather than by their passions. His argument only shows which principles are correct and which are incorrect. A barbarian would never be persaded by Hoppe or anybody else unless they persaded him that they could suppress him with physical violence.
Hoppe’s proof is an impossibility theorem demonstrating which actions can and can’t be socially justified. I think its the idea of “good and evil” that is missing, not “right and wrong”. Although I’m not sure that the two are mutually exclusive.
people ought not to do things that are wrong. regardless of whether they ‘offer’ whatever arguments. (plus it is noticable that they wont be able to argue for doing those things)
In the standard conception of “right and wrong”, this is surely true. However, Hoppe himself points out that his theory stays purely within the realm of “is” statements, so unless you’re providing something that Hoppe hasn’t I can’t say you’re correct. Of course, you’ve offered nothing more than an unsupported assertion and an equivocation. With your statement “people ought not to do things that are wrong” and your use of the word “wrong” respectively.
Perhaps you’re use of “good and evil” is better than “right and wrong”, and do you believe that a secular ethics is impossible?
What it ultimately means is that if you do engage in such behavior, you have no leg to stand on if you complain about measures taken against you (proportionally).
I’m not sure if that’s a matter of deduction, in fact I am not quite sure how proofs by contradiction are to be classified - they did come up in mind when I was posting that though. And regarding induction, I am going by the Aristotelian definition, whereby rational reflection can reveal necessary truths that are observed in the world as well as contingent ones. Basically just concept-formation. I can refer you to a paper that more or less captures my epistemological perspective.
Please do. I especially need to become familiar with the terminology. There is a large overlap of concepts between the mondern rationalists and neo-Aristotelians, but different labels for those concepts. For example, negative demonstration and self-referential self-evidence are really the same thing.