I don’t really understand Argumentation Ethics as written in Hoppe’s essay. I tend to agree with people in the Polycentric order blog that arguing implies self-ownership in the ontological sense but does not imply it ethically( What if the person arguing chooses to be a slave?).
Also, how is argumentation unique in proving self-ownership? If one is free to eat ice cream then doesn’t that choice imply self-ownership? I mean the logic seems to apply to every action done by the individual freely and unilaterally.
Finally, can we really consider argumentation a priori. Roderick Long commented on Stephan Kinsella’s post that it is not a self-evident starting point.
I don’t believe Hoppe’s essay proves argumentation ethics, but there have been several threads of debate on this one. I posted a critique here.
Being free to eat ice cream is a state of affairs, not an action. I believe Hoppe’s point is that arguing is an action, and that performing that action implies certain norms. I don’t believe that actions necessarily imply anything, so I don’t believe they automatically imply norms. The idea, though, is that in arguing against self-ownership, one is tacitly implying - by the act of freely using and controlling one’s own body - that one’s body ought to be freely controllable by oneself, thereby (Hoppe says) the arguer would be implying self-ownership even while denying it. This he calls a “performative contradiction.” So the reason “being free to eat ice cream” might not imply self-ownership all by itself (for Hoppe) is that there is no action. It’s only a state of affairs, so there can be no performative contradiction within Hoppe’s framework in that case (because nothing is being “performed”).
I meant the ACTION of unilaterally eating ice cream. Why is it just because you argued against self-ownership means that you ought to control your self? Again I’m thinking his logic will reduce itself into the Randian argument that there has to be self-ownership or else man will perish, which would mean his theory is nothing new.
I’m thinking that Hoppe chose argumentation specifically because it is the only instance of a conflict wherein a performative contradiction is inescapable. A person might be forced pay taxes and deny self-ownership but he cannot deny self-ownership when he is arguing. But what if the person arguing is just the agent of another person? I don’t know this is all very confusing.
I apologize. I didn’t readily know what you meant by your initial statement that ‘…the argument will logically end…’. That’s why I said depends on, but ignore that comment of mine.[:)]
This is a different kind of slavery, a voluntary type.
If one does not choose to become a slave that is different. The long and short of it is that you can’t possibly choose to have no choice in slavery, because if you did choose, then you would have had a choice, as opposed to “no choice in slavery”.
The link to argumentation ethics is that an argument is aimed at getting you to choose or accept something.
Argumentation ethics uses a logical technique common in mathematics called proof by contradiction. By showing that the negative of a statement is a contradiction, this implies that your statement is inexorably true.
The statement that one does not own his body is impossible, since the very act of making this argument is an exercise in self-ownership. Arguing for collective ownership is also impossible, as one would have to get the agreement of all humans before making such an argument. Since someone making such an argument must always violate this condition, it is a contradiction.
I remember a lecture by Long in which he somewhat refutes argumentation ethics by stating [ paraphrasing ] you can try to have a lovely conversation with someone all while torturing them, it would be rather bizarre and you will get some shrieks and moans out of the individual but you can still talk to them while you do it. For what I understand on argumentation grounds, you allowing someone to speak means you are respecting their self-ownership and if you can do that while destroying their self-ownership through torture then I think it a solid refutation.
My understanding of AE just kind of says you can’t get someone to choose “no choice”. What the participants of the conversation are actually doing (torturing, singing) doesn’t seem to matter.
Well am I right to think that argumentation ethics says that self-ownership is established through speech? If that is correct then how can it be truly self ownership if you are under the will of someone who is constantly torturing you? Does argumentation ethics make a distinction between de facto and normative?