Top

Argumentation

Published in:

13-02-2017

Brothers in Arms: Virtue and Pragma-Dialectics

Author: José Ángel Gascón

Published in: Argumentation | Issue 4/2017

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Virtue argumentation theory focuses on the arguers’ character, whereas pragma-dialectics focuses on argumentation as a procedure. In this paper I attempt to explain that both theories are not opposite approaches to argumentation. I argue that, with the help of some non-fundamental changes in pragma-dialectics and some restrictions in virtue argumentation theory, it is possible to regard these theories as complementary approaches to the argumentative practice.

previous article Laypeople’s Evaluation of Arguments: Are Criteria for Argument Quality Scheme-Specific?

next article Fernando Leal Carretero (coord.): Argumentación y Pragma-Dialéctica: Estudios en Honor a Frans van Eemeren

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Or, if you prefer Wenzel’s (2006) terms, logic focuses on products, dialectic on the procedure, and rhetoric on the process. O’Keefe’s (1977) twofold distinction between argument as product and argument as interaction or process is good enough for my purpose of differentiating logic from dialectic; like virtue argumentation theory, and unlike rhetoric, these two disciplines are normative and hence are the disciplines that I will take into account.

Notice that the principle of honesty might be in tension with the pragma-dialectic principle of externalisation, according to which speculations about what the arguers “think or believe” should be avoided (1992, p. 10). I will not delve into that, however, because arguably speech act theory offers the possibility of making reference to the speaker’s intentions and sincerity.

For a more detailed account of the development of the pragma-dialectical rules, see Zenker (2007).

It is, however, a forbidden topic for the arguers during the discussion. I thank an anonymous reviewer for this clarification.

I thank two anonymous reviewers for this suggestion.

Bowell and Kingsbury say that it is never legitimate to do so. I do not endorse such a strong claim, but the weaker one that in general it is not legitimate. Aberdein (2014) provides several examples in which considerations of character might be relevant in order to accept or reject an argument.

As an anonymous reviewer suggested, another way of looking at this issue could be to hold that the only variant of virtue argumentation theory that is compatible with pragma-dialectics is the modest moderate, in Paglieri’s (2015, p. 77) terms: “cogency is necessary, albeit not sufficient, for argument quality, and moreover it is an aspect of quality that does not require considerations of character to be established.” It is certainly the variant of virtue argumentation theory that I am defending here.

I thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to me.

Not all virtue argumentation theorists would agree with this, however. As Paglieri (2015) shows, some proponents of a virtue approach to argumentation hold that the quality of arguments is not determined by the informal logicians’ notion of cogency—the radicals—and others hold that a virtue approach to argumentation can explain cogency—the ambitious moderates. I thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to me.

Aberdein, A. 2007. Virtue argumentation. In Proceedings of the 6th conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and B. Garssen, 15–19. Amsterdam: SicSat.

Aberdein, A. 2010. Virtue in argument. Argumentation 24 (2): 165–179.CrossRef

Aberdein, A. 2014. In defence of virtue: The legitimacy of agent-based argument appraisal. Informal Logic 34 (1): 77–93.CrossRef

Annas, J. 2011. Intelligent virtue. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Bowell, T., and J. Kingsbury. 2013. Virtue and argument: Taking character into account. Informal Logic 33 (1): 22–32.CrossRef

Cohen, D.H. 2007. Virtue epistemology and argumentation theory. In Dissensus and the search for common ground, ed. H.V. Hansen, 1–9. Windsor: OSSA.

Cohen, D.H. 2009. Keeping an open mind and having a sense of proportion as virtues in argumentation. Cogency 1 (2): 49–64.

Cohen, D.H. 2013a. Skepticism and argumentative virtues. Cogency 5 (1): 9–31.

Cohen, D.H. 2013b. Virtue, in context. Informal Logic 33 (4): 471–485.CrossRef

Correia, V. 2012. The ethics of argumentation. Informal Logic 32 (2): 222–241.CrossRef

Evans, J. 2004. Biases in deductive reasoning. In Cognitive illusions, ed. R.F. Pohl, 127–144. Hove: Psychology Press.

Garssen, B., and J.A. van Laar. 2010. A pragma-dialectical response to objectivist epistemic challenges. Informal Logic 30 (2): 122–141.CrossRef

Godden, D. 2016. On the priority of agent-based argumentative norms. Topoi 35 (2): 345–357.CrossRef

Hamby, B. 2015. Willingness to inquire: The cardinal critical thinking virtue. In The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education, ed. M. Davies, and R. Barnett, 77–87. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Hansen, H.V. 2003. The rabbit in the hat: The internal relations of the pragma-dialectical rules. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 55–68. Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media.CrossRef

Kidd, I.J. 2016. Intellectual humility, confidence, and argumentation. Topoi 35 (2): 395–402.CrossRef

Lord, C.G., L. Ross, and M.R. Lepper. 1979. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (11): 2098–2109.CrossRef

MacIntyre, A. 2007. After virtue: A study in moral theory, 3rd ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Nickerson, R.S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2 (2): 175–220.CrossRef

O’Keefe, D.J. 1977. Two concepts of argument. The Journal of the American Forensic Association 13 (3): 121–128.

Paglieri, F. 2015. Bogency and goodacies: On argument quality in virtue argumentation theory. Informal Logic 35 (1): 65–87.CrossRef

Popa, E.O. 2016. Criticism without fundamental principles. Informal Logic 36 (2): 192–216.CrossRef

Pronin, E. 2007. Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (1): 37–43.CrossRef

Pronin, E. 2008. How we see ourselves and how we see others.Science 320 (5880): 1177–1180.CrossRef

Pronin, E., T. Gilovich, and L. Ross. 2004. Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review 111 (3): 781–799.CrossRef

Roberts, R.C., and R. West. 2015. Natural epistemic defects and corrective virtues. Synthese 192 (8): 2557–2576.CrossRef

Siegel, H., and J. Biro. 2008. Rationality, reasonableness, and critical rationalism: Problems with the pragma-dialectical view. Argumentation 22 (2): 191–203.CrossRef

Tindale, C.W. 1996. Fallacies in transition: An assessment of the pragma- dialectical perspective. Informal Logic 18 (1): 17–33.CrossRef

van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRef

van Eemeren, F.H. 2012. The pragma-dialectical theory under discussion. Argumentation 26 (4): 439–457.CrossRef

van Eemeren, F.H. 2015. Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.CrossRef

van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1988. Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 2 (1): 271–291.CrossRef

van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

van Eemeren, F.H., B. Meuffels, and M. Verburg. 2000. The (un)reasonableness of ad hominem fallacies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 19 (4): 416–435.CrossRef

Wenzel, J.W. 2006. Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In Perspectives on argumentation: essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede, ed. R. Trapp, and J. Schuetz, 9–26. New York: Idebate Press.

Zenker, F. 2007. Changes in conduct-rules and ten commandments: Pragma-dialectics 1984 vs. 2004. In Proceedings of the 6th conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and B. Garssen, 1581–1589. Amsterdam: SicSat.

Title: Brothers in Arms: Virtue and Pragma-Dialectics
Author: José Ángel Gascón
Publication date: 13-02-2017
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Argumentation / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0920-427X
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8374
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9423-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Radiolab’s Sound Strategic Maneuvers

Argumentative Writing Behavior of Graduate EFL Learners

Christian Plantin: Dictionnaire de l’Argumentation. Une Introduction aux Études d’Argumentation

Laypeople’s Evaluation of Arguments: Are Criteria for Argument Quality Scheme-Specific?

“You Think That Says a Lot, but Really it Says Nothing”: An Argumentative and Linguistic Account of an Idiomatic Expression Functioning as a Presentational Device

Fernando Leal Carretero (coord.): Argumentación y Pragma-Dialéctica: Estudios en Honor a Frans van Eemeren