Returning to my journey through Jordan Peterson’s videos, I
offer several paraphrased tidbits. I
believe most, if not all of these come from his series entitled “Professor
against Political Correctness,” but I won’t swear on it.
Argumentation Ethics?
You
cannot derive an “ought” from an “is.”
You cannot derive ethical guidelines from factual knowledge. The reason is that there are an infinite
number of facts from which to choose, so which facts are you going to
pick? Merely by attending to some and
not another you are already using an ethic.
When I hear this from Peterson, why do I think of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics?
Hoppe states that his theory is an
a priori, value-free praxeological argument for deontological libertarian
ethics. Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a
presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied during an
argument.
When two parties are in conflict, they can choose one of two
means to resolve this conflict:
Engaging in violence, or engaging
in honest argumentation.
Choosing violence to resolve conflict does not strike me as
something sustainable for human life on earth (have I just made a value
statement, I wonder?). If they choose
argumentation, they inherently reject violence as the means for resolving
conflict – hence coming to the non-aggression principle.
Ok, I have taken this one about as far as I am able (probably
even beyond this); your thoughts are more than welcome on this.
The Value of a Value System
No
value system, no positive emotion. The
post-modernists complain about a value system, because it includes some people
(winners), and excludes other people (losers).
So they flatten the value system, so there will be no losers.
When
you flatten the value system, you don’t get rid of suffering. When you flatten out value systems you still
have the losers; you merely get rid of the winners.
We see the radical left’s attempts and successes at
destroying all value systems. But I will
focus elsewhere.
Regarding the non-aggression principle: can this be
considered a “value system”? Is there
some positive emotion that comes from the absence of the initiation of aggression? Perhaps yes, if one were living in Central
Europe at pretty much any time between 1914 and 1991.
But even in this case, it still seems to me that non-aggression results in the absence of a negative emotion; this doesn’t strike me as the same thing as a
positive emotion. Is there meaningful “life”
in this, a life where all we have is the absence of negative emotion?
Does one even require “positive emotion” in life? Who says this is of value?
Well, it strikes me as a very dull, gray life. Without positive emotion, what’s the point?
So, if the non-aggression principle does not offer the
possibility of a positive emotion, what does?
Is it possible that each of us can hold to our own individual “value
system” – without regard to the value systems held by those we interact with
regularly – and at the same time be functional in this world? The notion strikes me as silly.
But if the notion is silly, then are we “stuck” living
within a value system not completely of our own choosing? No, not at all; not if you are happy living a
completely autonomous (and, perhaps, monotonous) life.
So, all that is left is to identify the value system that is
most conducive to improving and sustaining life – and for each of us work to develop
and improve – and not destroy – this value system.
This is getting messy…a positive obligation. For sure not to be found in the NAP, but there
you have it.
And I know I am playing with fire here….
The Truth About University
Education
University
administrators, especially in the United States, pick your pocket. They rob your future self while allowing you
to pretend you have an identity. You
can’t declare bankruptcy with your student loans, it is indentured servitude. It is Pleasure Island [Pinocchio].
Why
would the university make any demands on students? Why would they chase them out? They are $100,000!
I can’t add anything to this. He nails it.
An Interesting Way to
Put It
Are
they [extreme leftists] for women’s rights or for destroying western
civilization? Find your answer in their support
for the Saudis and Islamic fundamentalism.
Conclusion
Anyway, not a single one of these that I felt were worth its
own post, just a few interesting thoughts that I felt were worth sharing.
real life problems:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/09/tyler-durden/ron-paul-heres-the-truth-about-the-war-between-the-alt-right-and-cultural-marxists/
max
What is 8 billion times zero? The inablility to conceive of the morality of the NAP does not simply justify it hanging out there suspended in air, supported by nothing but the random neural impulses of some hairless bipeds who happen to have harmony of impulses.
DeleteRather, it is an argument that the SOURCE of the unanimity of those impulses must come from outside the systems. In short, arguing that we all agree on the morality of a position (the NAP) actually argues for a transcendent moral standard, and thus a transcendent personality (since morals are a derivative of personality).
I cannot stand in the room with Dr. Hoppe, and he is way way smarter than me. However, that fact does not erase the truth that attempting to root morality in a vote (even a unanimous one) is just laziness.
That Hoppe comes to his position in a manner that does not reference a transcendent personality does not negate the validity of his argument.
DeleteThere is discussion and there is force - I can think of no third way to resolve differences.
Finally, could you please reference where Hoppe has stated that his argument is dependent on a vote? Or am I misunderstanding your meaning?
There is a fundamental point to the NAP that I first introduced to by reading Roderick Long, which in short was that the interpretation of the NAP is subject to cultural norms/understandings. Paraphrasing him loosely, we all bring our perceptions to the table in determining the NAP.
ReplyDeleteAs I've mentioned before, I disagree with many of Roderick's notions(leftist) that lean towards positivist rights, but in allowing for libertarian societies to flourish one (IMO) should accept the notion of societies that might resemble communes or other notions outside of what we might conventionally think of as "not" libertarian on the basis that if it's strictly voluntary in nature then it fundamentally seems to fall into NAP adherence even subjectively.
Roderick has also argued that Neo-Nazi philosophy might usually fall into violence or other NAP violations from his perspective- but never considers the possibility his own moral system might do the same.(for example his disdain in a similar fashion to Tucker for discrimination/freedom of association/disassociation)
Despite my cultural differences with Roderick, I have to acknowledge the validity of his point about subjectivity in the defining many elements of the NAP. There is another prominent libertarian that is calling these subjective notions "appendages" to the NAP.
The problem is, that in doing so there is a failure in recognizing Roderick's point, which is we are all subjective creatures with differing values system and naturally view the NAP through subjective lenses. Subjectivity in general is a fairly well accepted point in libertarian and naturally Austrian circles.
The argument for moral absolutes is compelling, don't get me wrong, but it's simply a fact that there is no universally held beliefs as to what those absolutes "are" in some areas.(religious differences highlighting this)
My point is this:
The NAP is definitively a "value system". I seem to recall Rothbard claiming the mantle of morality in his promotion of it.
Sure, we can make logical arguments for the NAP, but how can we as libertarians acknowledge the notion that self interest will always be a human condition as an argument against government in general while all of a sudden ignoring that condition in considering NAP acceptance?
For example: What argument could someone have made to Ghengis Kahn that would have convinced him to abide by the NAP?
He had the power to do what he wanted and self interest did the rest. Hoppe's claim that "argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied" simply flies in the face of reality. (how many conquerors have we seen throughout human history?)
God help me for disagreeing with the intellectual giant that is Hoppe, but I can't draw another other conclusion logically at this point.
So why does someone choose to accept the NAP? Sure, some might do so logically in the hopes that a mutual agreement will stave off violence, but ultimately I agree with Rothbard and think the most compelling argument is:
MORALITY(and the bad news is, some people don't have "it" and never will)
That's the convincing argument for many people. Libertarians that start calling subjective systems of morality "appendages" are actually attacking a core point of Rothbard's in arguing for the NAP.
Ultimately, IMO, as long as voluntary interactions are maintained, meaning some of Roderick's positivist notions of "rights" aren't being forced upon me for example- if he creates or is part of a society where there's a "universal basic income" for example, so be it, as long as it's a society made up of voluntary participants.(and much to Roderick/Tucker's most likely chagrin, such a society would have to have enforced borders!*smile*)
Good points, thanks.
Delete"we are all subjective creatures with differing values system"
I often return to this when musing. Why am I who I am and why do I have certain values? Brought up within the socialist, homogenizing government schools and also within the Methodist church, my way of thinking must have been heavily influenced.
To be sure, there was a great deal of thought independent of these institutions, but what would I be like otherwise? What if I were born in Sparta 450 B.C.? Or the rigid caste system of India? Or Puritan New England? Do I owe at least part of my "enlightened" thinking to the socialists?
Nick
Delete“…accept the notion of societies that might resemble communes…”
I agree with Long in this, and in some ways it captures parts of what I term a common culture.
“The argument for moral absolutes is compelling, don't get me wrong, but it's simply a fact that there is no universally held beliefs as to what those absolutes "are" in some areas.(religious differences highlighting this)”
I am not sure I understand your point. Certainly I have never argued such a thing; is there something in the above that prompted this statement?
“The NAP is definitively a "value system".”
I think this is correct. I believe that the way my points flowed, I focused on the issue that the NAP does not offer the possibility of positive emotions – which I believe to be correct as well.
“Hoppe's claim that "argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied" simply flies in the face of reality.”
Nick, I am really losing your point. Does Hoppe suggest that just because (he believes) his argument cannot be denied from a logical standpoint means that all criminals and thugs will act accordingly? I cannot imagine he has ever even hinted at such a thing.
Arguments can be settled by dialogue or violence. Genghis Khan agrees with Hoppe – he chose violence.
“I agree with Rothbard and think the most compelling argument is: MORALITY”
This may be so, but how does this invalidate Hoppe’s point? And since Rothbard was apparently terribly please with Hoppe’s argument, does this suggest that Rothbard quit believing in morality as an argument?
“(and much to Roderick/Tucker's most likely chagrin, such a society would have to have enforced borders!*smile*)”
This I get, and it brought out a nice guffaw.
"I am not sure I understand your point."
DeleteIt's a setup for my later commentary.(see below)
"Nick, I am really losing your point. Does Hoppe suggest that just because (he believes) his argument cannot be denied from a logical standpoint means that all criminals and thugs will act accordingly?"
No, my point is that what you and I consider a value system of morality(the NAP for example) is not valued by many people as such, because they are devoid of our standard of morality, don't care, etc. et al.
As being such, how can Hoppe claim that argumentation ethics makes his arguments irrefutable? By what standard? His arguments logically speaking have no standing with those not subscribing to that standard(the NAP, hence the Khan reference as one example).
I used as a point of reference the notion of "self interest".
It was in Kahn's self interest to wage war & conquer given the power he wielded.
Khan's value system clearly did not see the NAP as a logical proof- so Hoppe's notion that the NAP is a "an a priori, value-free praxeological argument" seems questionable to me.
Have I made my point more clear? (hopefully)
@ Brutus
Delete"To be sure, there was a great deal of thought independent of these institutions, but what would I be like otherwise?"
All good questions and I love the Socratic method.
:)
I find Athenian democracy interesting in so many ways and little aspects of it so much smarter than even the "Founders" in their consideration of the nature of man.
So, in many ways, I question if man hasn't regressed in terms of polity in the last 2500 years.
I lean towards Block's statements(echoed by others like Wenzel) that suggest if libertarianism comes about we are looking at 1000 more years.(who knows, but the point is to settle in for the long battle). I think Block suggests some biological predispositions as well.
Anyway, my concern as noted to BM is really towards the parts of human population that don't accept the NAP as a value system. I feel like a large % of the population can/could value it, but it only takes 10%, devoid of morality(sociopaths) with no regard for the NAP to wreak havoc on the rest of us.
Sociopaths are many times smart enough to not share their actual value system because they know they would no longer be able to move through the world in their driven self interest, devoid of morality.(people around them would protect themselves)
Sounds like many a politician, no?
Nick, I think I have gone further regarding Hoppe's position than I am qualified to do. Best to leave it here.
Delete"Nick, I think I have gone further regarding Hoppe's position than I am qualified to do. Best to leave it here."
DeleteHa! To quote the great Saul Goodman:
"S'all good man."
:)
"Why would the university make any demands on students? Why would they chase them out? They are $100,000!"
ReplyDeleteVery true. They are also clay to be molded - handed off by the lower grades, where they are groomed to take their personal victim-hood to the next level.
"Choosing violence to resolve conflict does not strike me as something sustainable for human life on earth."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet the world population continues to grow.
It would be very interesting if data could be obtained on conflict resolution choices on the micro (individual) and macro (nation-state) levels.
With 7.5 billion people residing in 195 countries, God only knows the number of conflicts at the micro level. The number of macro conflicts seems more manageable to us mortals. But the quantity is not the issue here. Which choice is made when conflict arises at each level?
If individuals resorted to violence as a conflict resolution strategy at the same rate as states do, I think that we'd not be having this discussion right now.
It's interesting to note that the most violent state is the most powerful in the world, and the individual who facilitates the most arguments is one of the most wealthy. Heaven help us if facebook figures out how to offer more choices in conflict resolution. : )
"And yet the world population continues to grow."
DeleteI wonder how the world might be different if Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, FDR, Hirohito, Mussolini, Wilson, the Tsar, the Kaiser and Mao (and about a dozen more, but you get the idea) all had to settle their differences in a cage match Battle Royale to the death.
Yes!
DeleteI just thought of an additional option to add to violence and argumentation: a non-violent contest. A nice game of chess, or risk perhaps if there are more than two disputants. NAP, NAP, NAP....
DeleteBM, have you seen the recent Joe Rogan podcast with Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein? Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist. It is a very interesting discussion.
ReplyDelete"If they choose argumentation, they inherently reject violence as the means for resolving conflict – hence coming to the non-aggression principle."
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. Choosing argumentation might simply be a matter of choosing an approach that best fits the situation, after taking into account a cost benefit analysis, and risk analysis, about initiating violence. It is not the same thing as rejecting violence. Clearly preferable to violence though.
Excellent point.
DeleteMost excellent
Delete