—Argumentation Ethics in Short—

During argumentation you are abiding by norms consistent with the NAP.

The validity of arguments you make during argumentation presuppose the idea that changing norms, and actions, should be justified.

Thus, changing from the norms you abide by in argumentation requires justification.

The is/ought gap prevents directly proving certain norms as 'correct'.

Therefore, only norms presupposed during argumentation, like the NAP, are justifiable.

​

—An Immediate Error—

Upholding the norms of argumentation isn't necessary to support the validity of your own arguments.

In the original Hans Herman Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics, the idea is that arguing against the NAP is a performative contradiction.

​

This argument doesn't actually protect the NAP at all, as an argument for a claim inconsistent with the NAP is either valid or invalid, and that validity has nothing to do with what norms the arguer is abiding by.

Even if the interlocutor is performatively contradicting themselves by arguing against the NAP, that doesn't mean their argument is invalid. An argument's validity and correctness relies on the truth of the premises, and those premises do not rest upon the argumentation procedure at all.

​

Imagine someone arguing using mathematical axioms, that 1+1=2. Their argument is TRUE and VALID regardless of how they are arguing for it. If they are attacking you while explaining their argument, that doesn't disprove the argument.

​

—Why Justification Ethics is Objectively Better—

Yoggism's Justification Ethics is the following concept:

1. Ethical debate in general presupposes the idea that actions should be justifiable.

2. Such justification requires premises, and because of the is/ought gap there are limits as to how normative claims can be proven from what kinds of premises.

3. Only an appeal to interests can necessarily derive ethical normative claims.

4. Therefore, proving a normative ethical claim is rendered impossible, the claim unjustifiable, if it is inconsistent with the value of Interests.

​

This (simplified) argument, is based upon the presuppositions of ethical debate itself. Not the process of argumentation, but the key premise necessary for all normative justifications to be logically valid in the first place.

If you deny that premise, you forfeit all normative force and directly invalidate all normative arguments you make.

​

​

—The Argumentation as a Mere Means Problem—
Most deductions of Argumentation Ethics attempt to prove you cannot consistently argue for aggression because it argues against norms you presuppose as valid by arguing, but this only makes sense if you assume that argumentation and the norms associated with it are valuable as ends in themselves. Otherwise, the idea that arguing for aggression is a performative contradiction and thus your argument is invalid, simply does not follow.

Truth is, nobody is actually required to hold argumentation as an end in itself, as inherently valuable. The ability to argue for something in a way that constitutes the idealistic non-aggressive argumentation, doesn't actually affect what is true, nor does it affect what you can show others are rationally required to accept.

The argumentation process is merely an idealistic process to seek truth, to generate and revise deductive proofs that are created by mixing and swapping ideas. Non-aggression isn't actually required to create and revise deductive proofs, and regardless of the norms involved in the process, if you create a deductive argument in favor of some condition X, your argument's validity has nothing to do with whether you argued it while aggressing or not.

Thus if you argue in favor of aggression, your argument's validity is independant of what norms you use to argue, even if to an Argumentation Ethicist it may only be 'pseudo-arguing'.


—Refutation of Argumentation Ethics—
NAP Argumentation Ethics works like this:
Argumentation requires certain norms to work, including self-ownership and non-aggression. If you attack your interlocutor (arguer), argumentation breaks down.
What this means, is that arguing for anything that conflicts with the Non-Aggression Principle, is a performative contradiction as you are contradicting the very norms you presuppose by arguing in the first place.
This argument is demonstrably wrong, and for a simple reason. The norms presupposed by engaging in argumentation are not the same norms being argued against when someone usually argues for something that contradicts the NAP; like taxes, regulations, or the existence of any limitations on property rights.
This is because the argumentation process only presupposes procedural norms, one of which being non-aggression. Arguing for aggression in some other context thus cannot contradict your usage of a similar norm in the context of argumentation.
Below is a more explicit explanation as to why.

—Step-by-Step Explanation—
--Basic Truths--
Argumentation is a process that is used to discover and refine arguments.
Argumentation presupposes procedural norms, one of which being non-aggression.
The arguments discovered and refined during argumentation stand by themselves if they have true premises.
By engaging in Argumentation, you presuppose the procedural norm of non-aggression.
This presupposition is only in the sense that if non-aggression is violated in the process, the process fails to fulfill it's purpose correctly. This is simply because aggression during the process of Argumentation results in people conceding when they shouldn't.

--Reasoning--
The only time a performative contradiction arises is if one engages in full argumentation to argue against the procedural norms of argumentation itself.
Thus, since what is presupposed is strictly procedural, then during argumentation,  you can argue against 'non-aggression' as a principle all you want as long as you do not argue against non-aggression as a procedural norm of Argumentation itself.

--Conclusion
So, NAP Argumentation Ethics fails due to there being a difference between arguing against certain procedural norms, and arguing against norms for use in a different context.

—Further Reasoning—
The claim that "By arguing you presuppose the NAP therefore arguing against the NAP is a performative contradiction" is wrong because of a category error.
Presupposing the NAP as a procedural norm of the process of argumentation simply has nothing to do with what other contexts you think the NAP may or may not apply to.
Arguing the NAP is wrong in the context of government, for example, to argue for taxes or to argue for measures to enforce fair treatment, cannot be called a performative contradiction because you can do that while also accepting that true argumentation requires non-aggression.