Argumentation Ethics, Dialectic, Piplul (Lying)

Argumentation Ethics = Pilpul > Dialectic > Obscurantism + Suggestion + Redaction + Fiction > Fictionalism (conflation) > abrahamism > marxism-postmodernism.

– Argumentation and non-contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not in constraints prior to cooperation.

The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into an agreement do we justify our words and deeds within that agreement – thereby relying upon internal consistency (non-contradiction).

Prior to that fact, no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists – it is only desired. Moreover, the logic of cooperation is not binary.

We live in an amoral world of violence, theft, conspiracy and deception, and while we can construct cooperation, we construct cooperation at will given the costs and returns.

And our choices at any time are to:
(a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it,
(b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either
(c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation
(d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same,
(e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level.

So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation. We can test violations of reciprocity (cooperation) during disputes but no such dependence upon internal consistency exists prior to establishing a agreement (contract) for cooperation.

Leave a Reply