11 Comments
Mar 15, 2023·edited Mar 15, 2023Liked by Bentham's Bulldog

Regarding the footnote: If anything you were *too nice* to Fabian in your debate. this guy deserves to be ridiculed

Expand full comment
Mar 13, 2023Liked by Bentham's Bulldog

One of the few libertarians I knew in high-school was a fan of argumentation ethics, and used it "prove" global warming is a hoax, and I'm not being uncharitable, he wasn't saying the IPCC or Nordhaus were misleading people and such or that the Early Anthropocene Hypothesis is right, he was literally saying that global temperatures weren't rising and he knew this to be true basically a priori.

Expand full comment
AnonymousMar 13, 2023Liked by Bentham's Bulldog

I love the title so much

Expand full comment
Mar 13, 2023Liked by Bentham's Bulldog

I can see where they were coming from with their first point—right/wrong doesn’t precede human consciousness. But boy, do they lose me after that.

Expand full comment

" It’s a very strange phenomenon—you don’t see Democrats, for example, employing provably fallacious reasoning to argue for social security from first principles."

Academics on the left use Rawls' Difference Principle to justify redistributionist policies. I think that qualifies.

Expand full comment

So you're saying that the secret to defeating an argumentation ethicist is to put them in a room with communists?

Expand full comment

"For me to talk, I don’t have to think I have rights, and I certainly don’t need to think anyone else has like. All I have to believe, to avoid hypocrisy, is that my talking is worthwhile."

You don't even have to believe that. After all, a teleological nihilist and fatalist would say that nothing is worthwhile, and her talking now could no more be "hypocritical" than her having brown eyes now.

Expand full comment