| Revision as of 12:41, 12 August 2015 edit162.97.179.26 (talk) getting rid of discussion of sources that are not notableTag: section blanking← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:51, 20 September 2021 edit undoBiogeographist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,701 edits merged into Hans-Hermann Hoppe per WP:Articles for deletion/Argumentation ethicsTag: New redirect |
| (143 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
{{Libertarianism sidebar |expanded=Concepts}} |
|
|
|
{{Rcat shell| |
|
'''Argumentation ethics''' is a libertarian political theory first described in 1988 by ], a Professor Emeritus with the ] College of Business and ] Senior Fellow.<ref name="hanshoppe">{{cite journal |last=Hoppe |first=Hans-Hermann |author2=Murray N. Rothbard|author3=David Friedman|author4=Leland Yeager|author5=David Gordon|author6=Douglas Rasmussen |title=Liberty Symposium |journal=Liberty |date=November 1988 |volume=2 |url=http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/liberty_symposium.pdf}}</ref> Hoppe says his theory proves that arguing for any political position other than ] is logically inconsistent. He describes his argument as a strictly logical, value-free consequence of sound deductive reasoning. Responses have come mainly from Hoppe's friends and colleagues at the Mises Institute, among whom the argument's reception has been mixed.<ref name="blog.mises">{{cite web|last=Kinsella|first=Stephan|title=Revisiting Argumentation Ethics|url=http://archive.mises.org/9610/revisiting-argumentation-ethics/|work=Mises Economics Blog|publisher=]|authorlink=Stephan Kinsella|date=March 13, 2009|quote= number of thinkers weighed in, including ], ... ], ... ], ... ], ... ], ... ], ...], and others....}}</ref> |
|
|
|
{{R from merge}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{R to section}} |
|
==Responses from colleagues== |
|
|
|
{{R unprintworthy}} |
|
Various responses to Hoppe's argument came from Hoppe's colleagues at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.<ref name="blog.mises" /> Some of them accepted his argument, among them attorney Kinsella<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=312 |title=Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan |last=Kinsella |first=Stephan |date=19 September 2002 |publisher=Anti-State.com |accessdate=9 February 2012}}</ref> and economists ] and ],<ref name=anarcho-lockean>{{cite web |url=https://mises.org/daily/4629 |title=Beyond Is and Ought |first=Murray N. |last=Rothbard |date=November 1988|publisher=] |accessdate=14 October 2012}}</ref> 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..."<ref name=anarcho-lockean/> |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
Mises Institute economists ] and ] rejected Hoppe's argument.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Murphy |first1=Robert P. |last2=Callahan |first2=Gene |date=Spring 2006 |title=Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: A Critique |journal=] |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=53–6 |publisher= |doi= |url=https://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf |accessdate=9 February 2012 }}</ref> The late ] David Osterfeld, an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute, also rejected Hoppe's argument in an essay to which Hoppe subsequently responded.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/osterfeld_hoppe.pdf |title=Comment on Hoppe / Comment on Osterfeld |last= |first= |year= 1988 |publisher=Austrian Economics Newsletter |accessdate=14 October 2012}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Ludwig Von Mises Institute Senior Fellow and Auburn University philosopher ] reconstructed the argument in ] 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:{{quote|I don’t think there’s any reason to reject out of hand the kind of argument that Hoppe tries to give; on the contrary, the idea that there might be some deep connection between libertarian rights and the requirements of rational discourse is one I find attractive and eminently plausible. But I am not convinced that the specific argument Hoppe gives us is successful.<ref>{{cite web|last=Long|first=Roderick T.|authorlink=Roderick Long|title=The Hopperiori Argument|url=http://praxeology.net/unblog05-04.htm#10}}</ref>}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==See also== |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
==References== |
|
|
<references /> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Further reading== |
|
|
* {{cite journal|last=Van Dun|first=Frank|title=Argumentation ethics and the philosophy of freedom|journal=Libertarian Papers|date=January 1, 2009|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-201551105.html|accessdate=May 8, 2013|authorlink=Frank Van Dun}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==External links== |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* , video introduction by Hoppe |
|
|
* , on-line course by Stephan Kinsella. |
|
|
* {{cite journal|title=A Reply to the Current Critiques Formulated Against Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics|last=Eabrasu|first=Marian|journal=Libertarian Papers|year=2009|volume=1|url=http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/20-eabrasu-critiques-argumentation-ethics/}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|