The Uses of Argument in Communicative Contexts
Argumentation 24 (2):227-252 (2010)
| Abstract | This paper challenges the view that arguments are (by definition, as it were) attempts to persuade or convince an audience to accept (or reject) a point of view by presenting reasons for (or against) that point of view. I maintain, first, that an arguer need not intend any effect beyond that of making it manifest to readers or hearers that there is a reason for doing some particular thing (e.g., for believing a certain proposition, or alternatively for rejecting it), and second that when an arguer is in fact trying to induce an effect above and beyond rendering a reason manifest, the effect intended—the use to which his or her argument is put—need not be that hearers do what the stated reasons are reasons for doing. Where the actual or intended effect of making a reason R for doing X manifest is something other than doing X, I call it an oblique—as opposed to a direct—effect of making that reason manifest. The core of the paper presents an overview or map of the main categories of effect which arguments can have, and the main sub-types within each category, calling attention to the points at which such effects can be indirect or oblique effects. The purpose of that typology is to make it clear (i) how oblique effects can come about and (ii) how important a role they can play in the conduct of argumentation. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesTerry Connolly & Jochen Reb (forthcoming). Regret Aversion in Reason-Based Choice. Theory and Decision.
Edouard Gentaz & Yves Rossetti (1999). Is Haptic Perception Continuous with Cognition? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):378-379.
Jim Good & Jim Garrison (2011). Dewey, Hegel, and Causation. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 24 (2):101-120.
Clare R. Walsh & Ruth M. J. Byrne (2007). How People Think “If Only …” About Reasons for Actions. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (4):461 – 483.
J. D. G. Evans (2005). Reason and Violence: Arguments From Force. Philosophy 80 (2):267-277.
Kevin James Spears Zollman (2010). Social Structure and the Effects of Conformity. Synthese 172 (3).
Ulrike Heuer (2010). Reasons and Impossibility. Philosophical Studies 147 (2).
Elise Springer (2008). Moral Feedback and Motivation: Revisiting the Undermining Effect. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (4):407 - 423.
Jeff McMahan (1994). Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect. Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
Stuart Rachels (2002). Nagelian Arguments Against Egoism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 80 (2):191 – 208.
Rainer Dziewas, Christoph Kellinghaus & Peter S.�R.�S. (2003). The Principle of Double-Effect in a Clinical Context. Poiesis and Praxis 1 (3):211-218.
Maria Alvarez (2009). How Many Kinds of Reasons? Philosophical Explorations 12 (2):181 – 193.
John Michael McGuire (2012). Side-Effect Actions, Acting for a Reason, and Acting Intentionally. Philosophical Explorations 15 (3):317 - 333.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-05-11Total downloads2 ( #232,575 of 549,122 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
