David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (5):525 - 549 (2008)
In this paper we present an analysis of persuasive definition based on argumentation schemes. Using the medieval notion of differentia and the traditional approach to topics, we explain the persuasiveness of emotive terms in persuasive definitions by applying the argumentation schemes for argument from classification and argument from values. Persuasive definitions, we hold, are persuasive because their goal is to modify the emotive meaning denotation of a persuasive term in a way that contains an implicit argument from values. However, our theory is different from Stevenson’s, a positivistic view that sees emotive meaning as subjective, and defines it as a behavioral effect. Our proposal is to treat the persuasiveness produced by the use of emotive words and persuasive definitions as due to implicit arguments that an interlocutor may not be aware of. We use congruence theory to provide the linguistic framework for connecting a term with the function it is supposed to play in a text. Our account allows us to distinguish between conflicts of values and conflicts of classifications.
|Keywords||Values Emotive words Persuasion Approval Condemnation Argument from values Definitions|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Aristotle (2012). Nicomachean Ethics. Courier Dover Publications.
Stephen E. Toulmin (2003). The Uses of Argument. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
R. M. Hare (1952). The Language of Morals. Oxford Clarendon Press.
Citations of this work BETA
John Paley (2015). Why the Cognitive Science of Religion Cannot Rescue ‘Spiritual Care’. Nursing Philosophy 16 (4):213-225.
Similar books and articles
Sherry Baker (1999). Five Baselines for Justification in Persuasion. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 14 (2):69 – 81.
Diego E. Machuca (2009). Argumentative Persuasiveness in Ancient Pyrrhonism. Méthexis 22:101-26.
Frederick Suppe (1998). The Structure of a Scientific Paper. Philosophy of Science 65 (3):381-405.
Charles Leslie Stevenson (1938). Persuasive Definitions. Mind 47 (187):331-350.
Scott Hill (2010). Richard Joyce's New Objections to the Divine Command Theory. Journal of Religious Ethics 38 (1):189-196.
Peter Jan Schellens & Menno de Jong (2004). Argumentation Schemes in Persuasive Brochures. Argumentation 18 (3):295-323.
Raphaël Micheli (2012). Arguing Without Trying to Persuade? Elements for a Non-Persuasive Definition of Argumentation. Argumentation 26 (1):115-126.
Ana Nettel & Georges Roque (2012). Persuasive Argumentation Versus Manipulation. Argumentation 26 (1):55-69.
Andrew Aberdein (1998). Persuasive Definition. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale & A. V. Colman (eds.), Argumentation and Rhetoric. Vale
Douglas Walton (2011). The Structure of Argumentation in Health Product Messages. Argument and Computation 1 (3):179-198.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads94 ( #45,123 of 1,911,312 )
Recent downloads (6 months)31 ( #23,449 of 1,911,312 )
How can I increase my downloads?