Practical Argumentation as Reasoned Advocacy

Authors

  • Marcin Lewiński ArgLab, Nova Institute of Philosophy, Universidade Nova de Lisboa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v37i2.4775

Keywords:

advocacy, argumentation, comparativism, deliberation, polylogue, practical argument

Abstract

The paper offers a theoretical investigation into the sources of normativity in practical argumentation. The chief question is: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on “good” argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I address this question by analysing a detailed structure of practical argument and its varieties, and by discussing the tenets of a comparative approach to practical reason. I argue that given the comparative structure proposed, reasoned advocacy in argumentative activity upholds reasonableness whenever that activity is adequately designed. I propose some basic rules for such a design of practical argumentation.

Author Biography

Marcin Lewiński, ArgLab, Nova Institute of Philosophy, Universidade Nova de Lisboa

ArgLab, Institute of Philosophy of Language (IFL) post-doctoral researcher

Downloads

Published

2017-06-03

Issue

Vol. 37 No. 2 (2017)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright for each article published in Informal Logic belongs to its author(s). Informal Logic has the right of first publication. Permission to reprint any article that appears in Informal Logic MUST be obtained in writing from the author(s). In addition to any form of acknowledgement required by the author(s), the following notice must be added to the statement of copyright permission made in the reprint (with the appropriate numbers replacing the ellipses): [Article Title] was originally published in Informal Logic, [year], Volume ..., Number ..., pp. ...-... .