Analiza i Egzystencja


ISSN: 1734-9923     eISSN: 2300-7621    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/aie.2022.58-03
CC BY-SA   Open Access   DOAJ  ERIH PLUS  DOAJ

Issue archive / 58 (2022)
The Libertarian Argumentation Ethics, the Tranascendental Pragmatics of Language, and the Conflict-Freedom Principle

Authors: Norbert Slenzok ORCID
Uniwersytet Zielonogórski
Keywords: Hans-Hermann Hoppe argumentation ethics transcendental pragmatics of language consensus theory of truth conflict-freedom libertarianism
Data publikacji całości:2022
Page range:30 (35-64)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

The purpose of the presented paper is to showcase the links between Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s libertarian argumentation ethics and Karl-Otto Apel’s transcendental pragmatics with a special reference to the consensus theory of truth proposed by the latter thinker. More specifically, the author contends that Hoppe’s theory is logically contingent on Apel’s views on truth in that some crucial gaps in Hoppe’s grounding of the so-called “a priori of communication and argumentation” are filled by Apel’s original arguments. Additionally, the paper provides a case for interpreting Hoppe's ethics as a theory of rational conflict-freedom, which seems to cohere best with the transcendental-pragmatist approach. Finally, the author offers a few remarks on how the most common objections against Hoppe's theory can be overcome on the basis of the transcendental pragmatics and the conflict-freedom principle.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.References
2.Albert H. (1985), Treatise on Critical Reason, Princeton 1985.
3.Aristotle (2005), Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, NuVisions Publications.
4.Apel K.O. (1996a), A Planetary Macroethics for Humanity, [in:] Selected Essays vol. 2, Humanity Press, New Jersey: 275-292.
5.Apel K.O. (1994), C.S. Peirce and Post-Tarskian Truth, [in:] Selected Essays vol. 1, Humanity Press, New Jersey: 175-206.
6.Apel K.O. (2006), Refleksja transcendentalno-pragmatyczna. Główna perspektywa aktualnej transformacji filozofii Kanta, trans. Z. Zwoliński, [in:] M. Potępa, Z. Zwoliński [ed.], Dwieście lat z filozofią Kanta, Wyd. Genessis, Warszawa: 509-530.
7.Apel K.O. (1991), Semiotyka transcendentalna a prawda. Znaczenie konsensualnej teorii prawdy Peirce'a we współczesnej dyskusji na temat prawdy, “Principia” IV: 5-22.
8.Apel K.O. (1996b), The Question of Grounding: Philosophy and Transcendental Pragmatics of Language, [in:] Selected Essays vol. 2, Humanity Press, New Jersey: 68-102.
9.Apel K.O. (1998), Towards a Transformation of Philosophy, trans. G. Adey, D. Frisby, Marquette University Press, Milwaukee.
10.Apel K.O. (1997), Zasada samofundowania swoich podstaw w hermeneutycznej rekonstrukcji historii, trans. P. Znaniecki, [in:] T. Buksiński (ed.), Rozumność i racjonalność, WN UAM.
11.Chwedeńczuk B. (1984), Spór o naturę prawdy, Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, Warszawa.
12.Dominiak Ł. (2017), Libertarianism and Original Appropriaton, “Historia i polityka” 29: 43-56.
13.Dominiak Ł. (2019), Must Right-Libertarians Embrace Easements by Necessity?, “Diametros” 60: 34-51.
14.Gordon D. (1988), Radical and Quasi-Kantian, “Liberty” 2: 46-47.
15.Friedman D. (1988), The Trouble with Hoppe, “Liberty” 2: 44.
16.Eabrasu M. (2009), A Reply to the Current Critiques Formulated Against Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics, “Libertarian Papers” 1: 1-29.
17.Eabrasu M. (2012), Rothbard’s and Hoppe’s Justifications of Libertarianism. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 12(3), 288–307.
18.Frederic D. (2013), Hoppe’s Derivation of Self-Ownership from Argumentation: Analysis and Critique, “Reason Papers” 35: 92-106.
19.Habermas J. (1979), What is Universal Pragmatics?, [in:] Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans. T. McCarthy, Beacon Press, Boston: 1-68.
20.Hare R.M. (1981), Moral Thinking. Its Levels, Method, and Point, Clarendon Press, New York.
21.Hohfeld, W. (1919), Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, [in:] idem, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Essays, New Haven-London.
22.Hoppe H-H. (2016a), A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.
23.Hoppe H-H. (2007), Economic Science and the Austrian Method, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.
24.Hoppe H-H. (1987), Eigentum, Anarchie und Staat. Studien zur Theorie des Kapitalismus, Westdeutscher Verglag, Opladen.
25.Hoppe H-H. (2018), Getting Libertarianism Right, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.
26.Hoppe H-H. (1976), Handeln und Erkennen. Zur Kritik des Empirismus am Beispiel der Philosophie David Humes, Herbert Lang/Peter Land, Bern/Frankfurt am Main 1976.
27.Hoppe H-H. (1989), In Defense of Extreme Rationalism: Thoughts on Donald McCloskey's “The Rhetoric of Economics”, “The Review of Austrian Economics” 3:179-214.
28.Hoppe H-H. (1983), Kritik der kausalwissenschaftlichen Sozialforschung. Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung von Soziologie und Ökonomie, Westdeutscher Verglag, Opladen.
29.Hoppe H-H. (2006), The Economics and Ethics of Private Property. Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.
30.Hoppe H-H. (2016b) On the Ethics of Argumentation, URL = http://propertyandfreedom.org/2016/10/hans-hermann-hoppe-on-the-ethics-of-argumentation-pfs-2016/ [available 22.11.2019].
31.Hoppe H-H. (2012), The Great Fiction. Property, Economy, Society, and the Politics of Decline. Laissez Faire Books, Baltimore.
32.Jones M. (1988), A Matter of Degree, “Liberty” 2: 49.
33.Kant I. (1929), Critique of Pure Reason, trans. N.K. Smith, Macmillan and CO., London.
34.Kinsella N.S. (2008), Against Intellectual Property, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.
35.Kinsella N.S. (2002), Defending Argumentation Ethics, URL = http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/defending-argumentation-ethics/.
36.Kinsella N.S. (2006), How We Come to Own Ourselves, URL = https://mises.org/library/how-we-come-own-ourselves [available 22.11.2019].
37.Kinsella N.S. (1994), The Undeniable Morality of Capitalism, “St. Mary’s Law Journal” 25: 1420-1447.
38.Kinsella N.S. (2009), What Libertarianism Is?, [in:] J.G. Hülsmann, S. Kinsella (ed.), Property, Freedom, Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Auburn AL, p. 179-196.
39.Kramer M. (1998), Rights Without Trimmings, [in:] M. Kramer, N.E. Simmonds, H. Steiner, A Debate Over Rights. Philosophical Inquiries, Oxford University Press, New York:, p. 7-59
40.Kuhlmann W. (1981), Reflexive Letzbegründung. Zur These von der Unhintergehbarkeit der Argumentationssituation, “Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung” 35: 3-26.
41.Lorenzen P. (1969), Normative Logic and Ethics, Hohschultaschenbücher Verlag, Mannheim/Zürich.
42.Murphy R.P, Callahan G. (2006), Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics: A Critique, “Journal of Libertarian Studies” 20: 53-62.
43.Machan T. (1988), Ethics Without Philosophy, “Liberty” 2: 52-53.
44.Peirce Ch.S. (1878), How to Make Our Ideas Clear, „Popular Science Monthly 12: 286-302, URL = http://www.filosofia.unimi.it/zucchi/NuoviFile/Peirce1878.pdf.
45.Peirce Ch.S. (1934a), Some Consequences of Four Incapacities,[in:] The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Ch. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, A.W. Burks (ed), vol. 5: 264-317.
46.Peirce Ch.S. (1934b), Grounds of Validity of the Laws of Logic: Further Consequences of the Four Incapacitie, [in:] The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Ch. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, A.W. Burks (ed), vol. 5: 318:357.
47.Rasmussen D. (1988): Arguing and Y-ing, “Liberty” 2: 50-52.
48.Rothbard M.N. (1988), Beyond Is and Ought, “Liberty” 2: 44-45.
49.Rothbard M.N. (1998), The Ethics of Liberty, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.
50.Schmelzer I, (2013), Against Absolute Certainty, URL = ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/againstCertainty.pdf [available 22.11.2019]
51.Sierocka B. (2003), Krytyka i dyskurs. O transcendentalno-pragmatycznym uprawomocnieniu krytyki filozoficznej, Aureus, Kraków.
52.Steiner H. (1994), An Essay on Rights, Blackwell Publishers,Oxford UK-Cambridge USA.
53.Yeager L. (1988), Raw Assertions, “Liberty” 2: 45-46.
54.Van Dun F. (2009), Argumentation Ethics and the Philosophy of Freedom, “Libertarian Papers” 1 (Art. 19): 1-32.