Graduate studies at Western
Argumentation 15 (4):471-487 (2001)
|Abstract||A problem arises, both for philosophy and for argumentation theory, in a pluralist world where people hold widely different beliefs about what to do. Some responses to this problem, including relativism, might settle but do not provide any criteria for resolving such differences. Alternative responses seek a means of resolution in universalist, culture-neutral criteria which must be invoked in assessing all human action. A philosophically adequate account of universalism would contribute to an ideal of critical rationality, as well as to the ideas of field-invariance and of convincing, as opposed to persuasive, argumentation. The account's adequacy would require universality both in form and in content. Universality in form is secured by seeking universal preconditions for practical reasoning in general, rather than specifically for morality. Universality in content is harder, and candidates such as freedom, autonomy and health are problematic. An alternative content is provided by the proposition that the satisfaction of material preconditions is necessary for the performance of any action whatever. Neglect of these preconditions may constitute a fallacy in the extended sense found in argumentation theory, and assumptions about them should form part of the point of departure for any practical deliberation|
|Keywords||Fallacy materiality practical reason Rawls relativism universalism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Christoph Lumer (2000). Reductionism in Fallacy Theory. Argumentation 14 (4):405-423.
Douglas Walton (2002). The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument From Waste. Argumentation 16 (4):473-503.
Ana Nettel & Georges Roque (2012). Persuasive Argumentation Versus Manipulation. Argumentation 26 (1):55-69.
Douglas Walton (1999). The Fallacy of Many Questions: On the Notions of Complexity, Loadedness and Unfair Entrapment in Interrogative Theory. [REVIEW] Argumentation 13 (4):379-383.
Lilian Bermejo-Luque (2010). Intrinsic Versus Instrumental Values of Argumentation: The Rhetorical Dimension of Argumentation. [REVIEW] Argumentation 24 (4):453-474.
Beth Innocenti Manolescu (2004). Formal Propriety as Rhetorical Norm. Argumentation 18 (1):113-125.
William Rehg, Peter McBurney & Simon Parsons (2004). Computer Decision-Support Systems for Public Argumentation: Assessing Deliberative Legitimacy. [REVIEW] AI and Society 19 (3):203-228.
Harm Kloosterhuis (2000). Analogy Argumentation in Law: A Dialectical Perspective. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):173-187.
Tim Heysse (1998). Transcendence, Truth, and Argumentation. Inquiry 41 (4):411 – 434.
Maeve Cooke (2002). Argumentation and Transformation. Argumentation 16 (1):81-110.
Gregor Betz (2010). Petitio Principii and Circular Argumentation as Seen From a Theory of Dialectical Structures. Synthese 175 (3):327-349.
Hans Hoeken, Rian Timmers & Peter Jan Schellens (2012). Arguing About Desirable Consequences: What Constitutes a Convincing Argument? Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):394 - 416.
Murali Ramachandran (2008). Descriptions and Pressupositions: Strawson Vs. Russel. South African Journal of Philosophy 27 (3):242-257.
Chris W. Surprenant (2010). Liberty, Autonomy, and Kant's Civil Society. History of Philosophy Quarterly 27 (1).
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Added to index2010-09-11
Total downloads5 ( #170,895 of 757,546 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,427 of 757,546 )
How can I increase my downloads?