Is there a meta-ethical classification for arguments grounding morality in self-contradiction, e.g. Gewirth’s dialectical necessity?

New edit for clarification: I’m asking whether this specific kind of moral argument has its own recognized name, the same way utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, or virtue ethics each have their own name. The kind of argument I mean works like this: if you try to argue against the position, your own argument ends up relying on the very thing you were trying to deny, so denying it contradicts yourself.(ie. saying language doesn't exist) Gewirth’s theory is a somewhat known example of this kind of argument. Is there an established label for this style of reasoning, morality grounded in avoiding self-contradiction, the way there’s a label for ‘consequences matter most’ (utilitarianism) or ‘duty matters most’ (Kantian ethics)? Or does it just get discussed as Gewirth’s own personal theory without a broader category name? Gewirth’s Principle of Generic Consistency argues that any purposive(Goal-directed) agent is dialectically committed to affirming certain rights, on pain of self-contradiction. Is there a recognized meta-ethical category or school this kind of argument belongs to, beyond just ‘Gewirth’s own view’? I’m aware of Kant’s universalizability test as a related precedent, but I’m asking specifically about coherence or self-contradiction-based groundings for morality as a category, rather than about Kantian ethics broadly. Is this treated as its own recognized approach in the literature, or does it usually get folded into discussions of Kantian constructivism without its own separate classification?