Here is a critique of argumentation ethics.
Ethical theories are the best when no one gives a shit about them.
Argumentum ad populum
How so?
Then remain ignorant.
This story can not be true. The socialist went to a socialized statist hospital, where even if his condition wasn’t fatal they would have brutaly murderd him anyway. I call BS.
And how could you possibly distinguish yourself from a socialist when you are quoting that commie Hayek on your sig. “Individualism and Economics” is essentially a pinko rewrite of the Communist Manifesto.
Yet we can still make logical arguments to each other in the meantime, can we not? Even as A fails to recognize B’s right to himself, A can still say to B,
“If all calicos are cats, and all cats are feline, then all calicos are feline.”
And B can say back to A, “That is logically valid, as long as we’re not talking about about the fabric called calico.”
A can then reply, “No, by ‘calicos’ I mean ‘calico cats,’ not ‘calico fabric’.”
And B can conclude, “Well then, I concur.”
And then maybe A can knock B down if he thinks he might prefer the view (why someone who merely doesn’t recognize the objective validity or coherence of self-ownership rights would be prone to violence remains a mystery). Still, a rational argument seems to have taken place in the meantime.
Actually there has been much fruitful discussion on the matter (between Murphy and Callahan, Kinsella, Rasmussen and den Uyl, and van Dun.) Argumentation ethics as formulated by Apel and Habermas and refined by Hoppe is an interesting idea, rooted in Kantian theorising on ethics, and by no means “terrible” true or false.
More importantly, who cares if it does entail precisely that?
I wouldn’t call it fruitful. Ultimately, Callahan and Murphy conclude that AE is a joke without any real merit, the former quite correctly points out that the arguments put forth by Hoppe et al have never actually convinced anybody who isn’t already a libertarian. Now, as for Rasmussen and den Uyl, I recall the former saying that the idea has promise but I don’t know if I’ve read the opinion of the latter.
The fact remains, AE in its current formulation isn’t much to be taken seriously, and so it isn’t taken at all seriously be any professional philosophers.
I know, perhaps I should take embarrasing quotations by pseudo-economists out of my signature. But at least it’s not a quote by Hume, my goodness are the followers of that “cult” annoying.
But hey, I even look like a Murray Rothbard when compared with Hayek.
Actually, as an interesting aside. I had a property in downtown Freetown, it was a nice place but a bit of hassle cause it kept getting broken into. I was thinking about selling it when I got a bit of inspiration and changed the sign from saying “Trespassers will be shot!” to “Trespassers will be caught into a performative contradiction”. Since then? No problem!
Crazy shit.
I thought you were a 19 year old student on the government dole.
geeeez, enough with the lame jokes already.
There’s the small issue that neither Murphy nor Callahan are philosophers (despite the latter’s pretensions) and that the paper did nonetheless spark discussion on the matter, regardless of their conclusions. As for “professional” philosophers, one would have to poll them to find out their opinion on the matter I’d think…
I realize I maybe be picking at a relatively minor point, but I want to make sure were laying out the right arguments as to why AE may not work.
Is it not taken seriously due its logical (falacious) formulation? Or is it due to its radical implications which run against current ethical and political trends?
I want to make sure that your argument is, since the the reasoning is bad, professional philosophers do not take it seriously. And not the other way around. However, should we care what professional philosophers think? Anymore then professional economists or political scientists? Is philosophy some how free of the same statist leanings that other two have? Where academics are merely apologists for the current system.
Ultimately your argument is an appeal to authority.
“Ultimately, Callahan and Murphy conclude that AE is a joke without any real merit, the former quite correctly point”
Could you be so kind as to give me a link? 
I would be quite interested
Repeat that all you want, but it still won’t be true.
Point is that the fact of arguing requires that you accept his self-ownership. Not to do so means that you have two contradictory beliefs. So you must either stop arguing or accept his self-ownership.
Or…continue arguing, not accept his self-ownership and suffer having contradictory beliefs…
(you forgot this option)
But where is the contradiction?
yes it does.
No it doesn’t. Infringing on the self ownership of others is immoral and not allowed.
No it is not self evident because you have changed the definition to include immoral things.
Even if I give him the benefit of the doubt he equated harm and infringing on the liberty of others. Harm is not necessarily immoral and does not necessarily involve infringing on the liberty of others. Therefore his logic is flawed at least, and he is strawmanning at worst.
In the interest of clarity, two other questions come to mind:
-
What happens if I neither accept nor reject my opponent’s (objective right of) self-ownership, in other words if I have no belief on the issue at all? (For example, perhaps I have no belief for or against because I find it an incoherent notion, or because I simply don’t understand what is meant by the notion.)
-
Does my having no belief with regard to his (objective right of) self-ownership mean that I automatically reject it or automatically accept it? Why?
I believe cognitive dissonance is the word.
How does the “arguing with another means to automatically accept their self-ownership” fix the problem of cognitive dissonance?