Related:
- The problem of particularistic ethics or, why everyone really has to admit the validity of the universalizability principle
- Chapter 5: A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights
- Chapter 6: Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights
- Chapter 7: Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan
- Hans Hermann Hoppe, “On The Ethics of Argumentation” (PFS 2016)
- The A priori of Argumention, video introduction by Hoppe
- Lecture 3 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “The Social Theory of Hoppe” (slides here)
- Lecture 2 of my 2011 Mises Academy course, “Libertarian Legal Theory: Property, Conflict, and Society” (slides here)
- my “Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights,” in The Dialectics of Liberty (Lexington Books, 2019)
- Kinsella, “Explaining Argumentation Ethics and Universalizability Concisely to a Facebook Friend” (March 1, 2019)
- ——, The Genesis of Estoppel: My Libertarian Rights Theory, StephanKinsella.com (
March 22, 2016) - ——, Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics and Its Critics, StephanKinsella.com (
Aug. 11, 2015) - ——, The problem of particularistic ethics or, why everyone really has to admit the validity of the universalizability principle (Nov. 10, 2011)
- Other Argumentation ethics posts
Dear Mr. Kinsella,
My name is [], I’m [] years old and live in Türkiye. I’m reading libertarian philosophy and Austrian economics, and I also came across your writings on argumentation ethics; I found them very informative.
I understand and largely agree with the idea that engaging in debate presupposes certain norms, and that rejecting them leads to a performative contradiction. I also understand why any valid ethical norm must be universalizable.
However, I have a question:
From a Stirnerian or anti-ethical perspective, one might say, “The powerful can take everything, including my body, if possible.” While this may seem intuitively absurd, it seems like a universalizable proposition.
The way you worded it, it’s a “can”–a merely descriptive statement. This is not a normative or ethical statement, and thus requires no justification.
Try again.
My question is:
How exactly does defending such a claim involve a performative contradiction? For example, someone might say, “I chose to argue with you, but I could have also chosen to attack you.” How does argumentation ethics respond to this kind of objection?
I would be very grateful if you could share your thoughts on this matter.
***
What about this?
“The strong ought to have the right to take anything they can, including my body.”
It’s just an assertion, and an unjustifiable one. What’s the question?
***
Why is this claim unfair? Does presenting this claim within the argument involve a performative contradiction? If so, how?
Because the person proposing “The strong ought to have the right to take anything they can, including my body” is claiming that he has rights, while others do not, even though he has not demonstrated any difference between him and others; i.e., his statement is not universalizable. By engaging in civilized, peaceful discourse where he recognizes the value of peace and thus equal rights, reason, rationality, peaceful discourse and the universalizability principle, his assertion is contradictory and cannot be justified. Ergo, his assertion is an unjustifiable normative claim.
Thank you for explanation. I agree with you.
