Argumentation ethics
Argumentation ethics is an attempted proof of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism 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 argues that the mere act of argumentation implies agreement with anarcho-capitalist principles, and therefore, that arguing against anarcho-capitalism is logically contradictory.
Argumentation Ethics has received marginal attention from philosophers and logicians. Responses have mainly come from Hoppe's friends and colleagues at the Mises Institute, among whom the argument's reception has been mixed.
Argument
Hoppe believes that his theory is an a priori, value-free praxeological argument for what he describes as "libertarian ethics". and economists Walter Block and Murray Rothbard, who called it "a dazzling breakthrough for political philosophy in general and for libertarianism in particular," adding "he has managed to transcend the famous is/ought, fact/value dichotomy that has plagued philosophy since the days of the Scholastics..." The late Austrian Economist David Osterfeld, an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute, also rejected Hoppe's argument in an essay to which Hoppe subsequently responded.
Ludwig Von Mises Institute Senior Fellow and Auburn University philosopher Roderick Long reconstructed the argument in deductively valid form, specifying four premises on whose truth the argument's soundness depends. Long goes on to argue that each premise is either uncertain, doubtful, or clearly false. He summarizes his views by stating:
A political theorist has concluded in a doctoral dissertation on the political philosophy of several Austrian economists that Hoppe has not provided any non-circular reasons why we "have to regard moral values as something that must be regarded as being established through (consensual) argument instead of 'mere' subjective preferences for situations turning out in certain ways". In other words, the theory relies on "the existence certain intuitions, the acceptance of which cannot itself be the result of 'value-free' reasoning."
Mainstream libertarian philosophers reject Hoppe’s argument. Jason Brennan argues:
Hoppe argues that the mere act of argumentation implies agreement with anarcho-capitalist principles, and therefore, that arguing against anarcho-capitalism is logically contradictory.
Argumentation Ethics has received marginal attention from philosophers and logicians. Responses have mainly come from Hoppe's friends and colleagues at the Mises Institute, among whom the argument's reception has been mixed.
Argument
Hoppe believes that his theory is an a priori, value-free praxeological argument for what he describes as "libertarian ethics". and economists Walter Block and Murray Rothbard, who called it "a dazzling breakthrough for political philosophy in general and for libertarianism in particular," adding "he has managed to transcend the famous is/ought, fact/value dichotomy that has plagued philosophy since the days of the Scholastics..." The late Austrian Economist David Osterfeld, an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute, also rejected Hoppe's argument in an essay to which Hoppe subsequently responded.
Ludwig Von Mises Institute Senior Fellow and Auburn University philosopher Roderick Long reconstructed the argument in deductively valid form, specifying four premises on whose truth the argument's soundness depends. Long goes on to argue that each premise is either uncertain, doubtful, or clearly false. He summarizes his views by stating:
A political theorist has concluded in a doctoral dissertation on the political philosophy of several Austrian economists that Hoppe has not provided any non-circular reasons why we "have to regard moral values as something that must be regarded as being established through (consensual) argument instead of 'mere' subjective preferences for situations turning out in certain ways". In other words, the theory relies on "the existence certain intuitions, the acceptance of which cannot itself be the result of 'value-free' reasoning."
Mainstream libertarian philosophers reject Hoppe’s argument. Jason Brennan argues:
Comments