[4 / 3]
60KiB, 1280x720, maxresdefault (1).jpg
View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Trace

Hoppe - argumentation ethics?

ID:MrdOWSnV No.107403667 View ViewReplyOriginalReport
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDGbcMKGHic

Why don't you support argumentation ethics, /pol/?

>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 must presuppose certain 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.