Abstract

Some decisions involve the use of a variety forms of arguments in order to balance different alternatives before getting a choice which is expected to be the better to solve the problem at issue. By doing this, there are some cases where people are able to or urge moving towards the choice that is most advantageous, probable or acceptable, and at other times towards a choice that is less negative or adverse than the others. Both alternatives depict different ways of searching for the stronger reason at stake. This means that the a fortiori argument is being used as a deliberative tool to reach a choice in a decision making process. I assume that such usage helps to show how the use of arguments a fortiori can be a very effective movement for designing an argumentation strategy to gain unbiased decisions, agreements or outcomes. However, it is the case that some biased uses may arise as well. For example, by appeal to one authority or status as a means to impose an idea or force a particular decision. This has a direct effect on objectivity and impartiality in decision making. In this paper I will present an analysis on how a fortiori arguments work either in personal or group processes of decision making, and when they are being used in biased or unbiased ways. This will provide some clues for a better understanding about the pragmatic conditions for applying correctly this kind of argument.