CLARIFYING MY POINT ON ARGUMENTATION ETHICS
Ok, guys, I know I haven't posted for ages. Loads has been happening - I have had to advertise my house to share, or I will have to move out, since all my house mates are moving out, leaving me with the whole rent. Plus, I spent some time in hospital and then convalessing at my parents after food poisoning turned into a virul bowel infection. Wasn't pretty!
So, anyway, that, plus Phd pressure have meant that I have been able to do little but speculate on a few philosophical issues, so that is what I will post on.
Firstly, since Hans Herman Hoppe did not reply to my argument against his "argumentation ethics," I can only assume that he did not understand it. So I will clarify:
Hoppe thinks that the simply act of declaring "I do not own myself" is some sort of performative contradiction, of the same sort as declaring "I do not act." Declaring "I do not act" is itself an action, and so performing that action contradicts the statement. On the other hand, how does saying "I do not own myself" contradict the idea that I do own myself? It doesn't. The only way it could, and the way I interpret Hoppe as arguing, is if the mere fact that I am acting when I say something necessitates that I own myself. But it does no such thing. The fact that I say "I do not own myself" simply means that I have a de facto control of myself, not de jure. It does not imply that I hold any obligations against anybody else that I might hold if I had de jure control over myself. Nor does it imply that I have control over those obligations, such as I can either waive them or secure their compliance, which is what I would have if I had a right in the Hartian sense. So even if, as I think is the case, all rights are property rights, Hoppe has not proved that the fact that I can act proves that I have any rights over myself, or that anybody is under any particular obligation by virtue of the fact that I can act.
So, anyway, that, plus Phd pressure have meant that I have been able to do little but speculate on a few philosophical issues, so that is what I will post on.
Firstly, since Hans Herman Hoppe did not reply to my argument against his "argumentation ethics," I can only assume that he did not understand it. So I will clarify:
Hoppe thinks that the simply act of declaring "I do not own myself" is some sort of performative contradiction, of the same sort as declaring "I do not act." Declaring "I do not act" is itself an action, and so performing that action contradicts the statement. On the other hand, how does saying "I do not own myself" contradict the idea that I do own myself? It doesn't. The only way it could, and the way I interpret Hoppe as arguing, is if the mere fact that I am acting when I say something necessitates that I own myself. But it does no such thing. The fact that I say "I do not own myself" simply means that I have a de facto control of myself, not de jure. It does not imply that I hold any obligations against anybody else that I might hold if I had de jure control over myself. Nor does it imply that I have control over those obligations, such as I can either waive them or secure their compliance, which is what I would have if I had a right in the Hartian sense. So even if, as I think is the case, all rights are property rights, Hoppe has not proved that the fact that I can act proves that I have any rights over myself, or that anybody is under any particular obligation by virtue of the fact that I can act.
posted by Richard at 1:16 PM
3 Comments:
Cripes. Hope you are better now. Sounds horrible!
Yep, cheers. Couple of days in hospital (pretty crap hospital though, no air con, no vegetarian option in the food, night staff that act like they are working in a factory rather than a caring profession), and then a week at the parents, kicking back as though on holiday.
Aint HSV grand?
Post a Comment
<< Home