Jump to content

Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board


Sign In 

Create Account
If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible troll and spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your information and the situation will be addresses ASAP.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

LISTEN TO A 24/7 STREAM ON THE NEW FREEDOMAIN RADIO iOS APP!


DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here

67 Philosopher King files - 73 Gold files - 48 Silver files - 51 Bronze files

One new Philosopher King podcast (Marriage Challenges: A Couple Conversation) and one new Silver podcast (Innocent Until Proven Guilty) have been added to the donator section.


If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information and it will be corrected as soon as possible.


Photo

Stef's argument for self-ownership = Tu Quoque fallacy?


  • Please log in to reply
214 replies to this topic

#211
thelion

thelion
  • 20 posts

By the way, everyone here realizes that the subject of dispute is basically whether argumentation ethics is true or not?

 

Argumentation ethics comes from Hans Hermann Hoppe, and Molyneux basically agrees with it. So do I (whatever that is worth).

 

When a person honestly argues with another and attempts to persuade or demostrate her point, she by virtue of arguing accepts his ownership of his body (and from there all his other freedoms and ownerships in the usual way). If she did not, then instead of arguing, she would attack, and force him to admit what she wants to hear, or at the least, not argue, or rely on dialectic tricks. But this she does not do in the first case.

 

There is no ad hominem when she says that he accepts her freedoms and ownerships and she accepts his freedoms and ownerships from the nature of their arguing peacefully and honestly together, for neither can or would refuse to do this and at the same time argue peacefully and honestly...

 

Of course, the weakness of argumentation ethics, is that the argument eventually ceases ... and then ....

 

Like they say in Japan, the customer is God, but that is only while he is in the store and buying ... once he leaves ...

 

Many (most?) people do not argue but charge on ahead with arms raised and weapons in hand, maybe shouting something, or muttering it, while they advance. In that case, so long as they are not actually in an argument, they needn't accept freedoms or ownerships of anybody besides them ...

 

Hence we need (and have) the other sources of ethics to defend life and liberty in all other cases except the honest debate, do we not?


  • 0

#212
Kevin Beal

Kevin Beal

    Philosopher in Training

  • 2355 posts

By the way, everyone here realizes that the subject of dispute is basically whether argumentation ethics is true or not?

 

Argumentation ethics comes from Hans Hermann Hoppe, and Molyneux basically agrees with it. So do I (whatever that is worth).

Not exactly:

FDR554 Argumentation Ethics


  • 0

"I know you're afraid, but being afraid is alright, because didn't anyone ever tell you fear is a superpower? Fear can make you faster, and cleverer and stronger and one day, you're going to come back to this barn and on that day, you're going to be very afraid indeed. But that's OK, because if you're very wise and very strong, fear doesn't have to make you cruel or cowardly. Fear can make you kind."


#213
labmath2

labmath2
  • 265 posts

While i think argumentation ethics is genius, i only have one problem with it, it is one of those theoretical rules that may not work so well when you move from epistemology to ontology. We can argue about what is best for man while there is no direct cause for either one of us to be swayed and we can both walk away in disagreement. In essence, arguments do not need to be resolved and there is minimal cost for arguing with someone else about concepts. However, when we argue about real things, i.e who owns this land, there is a real cost to not resolving that argument quickly and other means might become more attractive than arguing. 

 

To address more pressing concern, if i argue that Government should be used to solve social problems, while i violate argumentation ethics, the cost of arguing here is rather low ( at least from the statist perspective, of course, a libertarian realizes the more time spent arguing, the longer they are oppressed by a violent institution). If i lived in a an area where a company is fracking, knowing the time we spend arguing means more time for them to frack might make me less inclined to argue. This is why we argue about those situations in a metaphysical sense before the situation actually arises. It is the same reason we do not let victims or family members of victims investigate or sentence the accused. They can in theory be reasonable, but in practice be much less reasonable.


  • 0

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." - Henry Kissinger


#214
Kevin Beal

Kevin Beal

    Philosopher in Training

  • 2355 posts

While i think argumentation ethics is genius, i only have one problem with it, it is one of those theoretical rules that may not work so well when you move from epistemology to ontology. We can argue about what is best for man while there is no direct cause for either one of us to be swayed and we can both walk away in disagreement. In essence, arguments do not need to be resolved and there is minimal cost for arguing with someone else about concepts. However, when we argue about real things, i.e who owns this land, there is a real cost to not resolving that argument quickly and other means might become more attractive than arguing.

Both examples have ontological aspects. Action is real. Ethics would make absolutely no sense if it did not bear on the real world.

 

Ethical theories like Argumentation Ethics and UPB don't say anything about what the possible outcomes of actions may be. The argument from effect may be important, but it's not actually a criticism of the theory. It's a criticism of reality (assuming it really would result in whatever outcome).

 

And as far as a practical application goes, it's not limited to debate. If someone acts hypocritically, then you are justified in rejecting them and criticising them on that basis. By quickly and methodically rejecting hypocrites, you save yourself a lot of time, and it also means that you cannot sustain statism, religion and other similar cults.

 

By offering people these frameworks, you give them the same ability. And you don't want to debate people who don't understand that hypocrisy is bad or won't look at themselves. Assuming you are actually having a productive debate with someone, then it's not that far from getting them to accept enough of UPB or argumentation ethics to avoid moral evils like statism and religion.

 

Libertarians bickering about stupid shit is not the fault of ethical theories :)


  • 0

"I know you're afraid, but being afraid is alright, because didn't anyone ever tell you fear is a superpower? Fear can make you faster, and cleverer and stronger and one day, you're going to come back to this barn and on that day, you're going to be very afraid indeed. But that's OK, because if you're very wise and very strong, fear doesn't have to make you cruel or cowardly. Fear can make you kind."


#215
logic32

logic32
  • 32 posts

I think self ownership can be proven by reducing to absurdity: 

 

"I don't own myself, therefore I accept that I be killed or raped."

This is a common error, it doesn't follow that because you don't own yourself as property, that you can be morally permissibly killed or raped. For instance, it might be morally wrong to rape you because it has bad consequences, i.e. suffering. There are many other moral frameworks which explain why rape is wrong other than deontological self-ownership. That doesn't mean it isn't a valid theory, just that this is a bad argument for it.


  • 0