Abstract
The article discusses burden of proof rules in social criticism. By social criticism I mean an argumentative situation in which an opponent publicly argues against certain social practices; the examples I consider are discrimination on the basis of species and discrimination on the basis of one's nationality. I argue that burden of proof rules assumed by those who defend discrimination are somewhat dubious. In social criticism, there are no shared values which would uncontroversially determine what is the reasonable presumption and who has the burden of proof, nor are there formal rules which would end the debate and determine the winner at a specific point.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Beitz, Charles: 1977, Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Beitz, Charles: 1983, ‘Cosmopolitan Ideals and National Sentiment’, The Journal of Philosophy 80, 591–600.
Baier, Kurt: 1989, ‘Justice and the Aims of Political Philosophy’, Ethics 99, 771–790.
Blair, Anthony: 1991, ‘What is the Right Amount of Support for a Conclusion?’, in Frans H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, ISSA, Amsterdam, 330–337.
Buchanan, Allen: 1992, ‘Distributive Justice’, in Encyclopedia of Ethics, Garland Publishing Company, New York, 655–661.
Carruthers, Peter: 1994, The Animals Issue, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dearin, Ray: 1986, ‘Justice and Justification in the New Rhetoric’, in J. L. Golden and J. J. Pilotta (eds.), Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs, Reidel, Dordrecht, 155–185.
Doppelt, Gerald: 1980, ‘Statism without Foundations’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 9, 398–403.
Dunlap, David D.: 1993, ‘The Conception of audience in Perelman and Isocrates: Locating the Ideal in the Real’, Argumentation 7, 461–474.
Eemeren, van Frans H, Rob Grootendorst and T. Kruiger: 1984, The Study of Argumentation, Irvington, New York.
Feinberg, Joel: 1973, Social Philosophy, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Fisher, Walter: 1986, ‘Judging the Quality of Aidiences and Narrative Rationality’, in J. L. Golden and J. J. Pilotta (eds.), Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs, Reidel, Dordrecht, 85–103.
Fogelin, Robert and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong: 1991, Understanding Arguments, Harcourt Brace Javanovich Publishers, Fort Worth.
Frankena, William: 1962, ‘The Concept of Social Justice’, in R. Brandt (ed.), Social Justice, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1–29.
Fuller, Steve: 1988, Social Epistemology, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Goldman, Alan H.: 1982, ‘The Moral Significance of National Boundaries’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 7, 437–457.
Goldstick, Dan: 1971, ‘Methodological Conservatism’, American Philosophical Quarterly 8, 186–191.
Govier, Trudy: 1992, A Practical Study of Argument, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont.
Hamblin, C. L.: 1993, Fallacies, Vale Press, Newport News.
Katzner, Louis: 1970, ‘Presumptivist and Nonpresumptivist Principles of Formal Justice’, Ethics 81, 253–258.
Levi, Isaac: 1986, Hard Choices, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Margalit, A. and Joseph Raz: 1990, ‘National Self-Determination’, The Journal of Philosophy 87, 439–461.
McKerrow, Ray: 1982, ‘Rationality and Reasonableness in a Theory of Argument’, in J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, 105–122.
Miller, Miller: 1995, On Nationality, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Norton, Bryan: 1987, Why Preserve Natural Variety?, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Perelman, Chaim and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1971, The New Rhetoric — A Treatise on Argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.
Perelman, Chaim: 1980, Justice, Law and Argument, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Rescher, Nicholas: 1977a, ‘Some Dialectical Tools: Burden of Proof, Presumption and Plausibility’, in his Dialectics, State University of New York Press, Albany, 25–45.
Rescher, Nicholas: 1977b, ‘Evolutionary Epistemology and the Burden of Proof’, in his Dialectics, State University of New York Press, Albany, 100–124.
Sapontzis, Steve: 1985, ‘Moral Community and Animal Rights’, American Philosophical Quarterly 22, 251–257.
Shue, Henry: 1980, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and American Foreign Policy, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Singer, Peter: 1979, ‘Not for Humans Only: The Place of Nonhumans in Environmental Issues’, in K. E. Goodpaster and K. M. Sayre (eds.), Ethics and Problems of the 21st Century, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 191–206.
Singer, Peter: 1986, ‘All Animals Are Equal’, in P. Singer (ed.), Applied Ethics, Oxford University Press, New York, 215–228.
Steinbock, Bonnie: 1978, ‘Speciesism and the Idea of Equality’, Philosophy 53, 247–256.
Tindale, Christopher W.: 1991, ‘Audiences and Acceptable Premises: Epistemic and Logical Conditions’, in Frans H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, ISSA, Amsterdam, 288–295.
Wallach, John: 1987, ‘Liberal, Communitarians, and the Tasks of Political Theory’, Political Theory 15, 581–611.
Walton, Douglas: 1988, ‘Burden of Proof’, Argumentation 2, 233–254.
Walton, Douglas: 1989, Question-Reply Argumentation, Greenwood Press, New York.
Walton, Douglas: 1991, Begging the Question, Greenwood Press, New York.
Walton, Douglas, ‘Types of Dialogue, Dialectical Shifts and Fallacies’, in Frans H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Argumentation Illuminated, ISSA, Amsterdam, 141–147.
Walton, Douglas: 1996, ‘Plausible Deniability and Evasion of Burden of Proof’, Argumentation 10, 47–58.
Walzer, Michael: 1983, Spheres of Justice — A Defence of Pluralism and Equality, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
White, Morton: 1981, What Is and What Ought to Be Done, Oxford University Press, New York.
Woods, John and Walton Douglas: 1989, Fallacies, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Räikkä, J. Burden of Proof Rules in Social Criticism. Argumentation 11, 463–477 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007725003667
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007725003667