|Text from this version of Discourse ethics was copied or moved into Argumentation ethics with this edit on 05:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.|
|Text from this version of Discourse ethics was copied or moved into Argumentation ethics with this edit on 22:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Linguistics / Applied Linguistics||(Rated Start-class)|
looks like some asshole from the mises institute deleted the whole section that talked about other libertarians who presented the same argument before this guy hoppe did.
that section should be put back ASAP
The source "Madison (1986)" is missing from the bibliography. --zenohockey 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- This has been added (more than once, even). 220.127.116.11 22:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see the need to classify the traditional discourse ethics of Habermas and Apel as socialist. They surely need to be distinguished from the authors and theories mentioned further down on the page, but it seems like an undue generalisation to use a political term to classify a theory which appears to have primarily moral implications. If there are good reasons that I fail to understand, maybe someone could give them here? Otherwise I suggest a more politically neutral headline (or perhaps no headline at all, since the "libertarian approaches" mentioned below seem to either build on the works of Habermas and Apel or be different theories altogether (and while perhaps related to discourse ethics not appropriately classified under that title)). --PModin 19:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think the main reason is to compare and contrast the different applications or uses of the theory--it is a bit interseting and striking that some reach libertarian conclusions (Hoppe) and others (such as Hoppe's teacher, Habermas) reach more socialistic or welfare-statist conclusions. Seems worth pointing out to me; it's not meant to be loaded or anything more than descriptive. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 23:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I fail too to understand any socialist conclusion in Habermas.IsmaelPR 15:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with PModin that "socialist" is not very precise. Although both Apel and Habermas belong to the left, it is unfair to brand them as some kind of socialist philosophers. From a European perspective they appear as progressive philosophers rather than socialists in the political term. "Collectivist" seems better than "socialistic", since the latter gives unnecessary political connotations. Americans might misunderstand this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtom77 (talk • contribs)
- Collectivist sounds ok with me. Intangible 00:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Start new page for Argumentation Ethics ?
Hans-Hermann Hoppe's work on what has come to be called his argumentation ethics approach to libertarian theory is a growing, large, and potentially very large topic.
Might we consider creating a new page something like "Argumentation ethics (libertarian)" or perhaps "Praxeological justification of libertarianism" and then linking to it from Discourse ethics and labeling it as the "Main page" ?
As a start, the current text of the libertarian version of the topic could simply be copied and pasted to the new page. After that, each page could evolve as appropriate. --RayBirks 18:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)