|
Argumentation ethics is a libertarian political theory developed in 1988 by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a Professor Emeritus with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas College of Business and Ludwig von Mises Institute Senior Fellow. Hoppe says his theory proves that arguing for any ethical position other than property rights (libertarian anarchism) cannot be consistently forwarded in a controversial argument. Hoppe's argument is value-free and is constructed analytically. Among libertarian philosophers the argument's reception has been mixed. Hoppe states that because both parties in a debate propound propositions in the course of argumentation, and because argumentation presupposes various norms including non-violence, the act of propounding a proposition that negates the presupposed norms of argumentation is a logical contradiction between one's actions and one's words (this is called a performative contradiction). Specifically, to ''argue'' that violence should be used to resolve conflicts (instead of argumentation) is a performative contradiction. Thus, Hoppe argues that arguing against libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is logically incoherent. ==Foundation== Hoppe states that his theory is an a priori, value-free praxeological argument for deontological libertarian ethics.〔 Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied during an argument. Argumentation ethics draws on ideas from Jürgen Habermas's and Karl-Otto Apel's discourse ethics, from Misesian praxeology and from the political philosophy of Murray Rothbard. Hoppe first notes that when two parties are in conflict with one another, they can choose to resolve the conflict by engaging in violence, or engaging in argumentation. In the event that they choose to engage in argumentation, Hoppe asserts that the parties have implicitly rejected violence as a way to resolve their conflict. He therefore concludes that non-violence is an underlying norm (Grundnorm) of argumentation that is accepted by both parties. Hoppe states that because both parties propound propositions in the course of argumentation, and because argumentation presupposes various norms including non-violence, the act of propounding a proposition that negates the presupposed propositions of argumentation is a logical contradiction between one's actions and one's words (this is called a performative contradiction). Specifically, to ''argue'' that violence should be used to resolve conflicts (instead of argumentation) is a performative contradiction. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Argumentation ethics」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|