The Ethics of Argumentation
Normative theories of argumentation tend to assume that logical and dialectical rules suffice to ensure the rationality of argumentative discourse. Yet, in everyday debates people use arguments that seem valid in light of such rules but nonetheless biased and tendentious. This article seeks to show...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
University of Windsor
2012-06-01
|
Series: | Informal Logic |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/3530 |
id |
doaj-12515c7200434179a8fee3f08d663a5d |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-12515c7200434179a8fee3f08d663a5d2021-06-14T17:00:53ZengUniversity of WindsorInformal Logic0824-25772293-734X2012-06-01322The Ethics of ArgumentationVasco Correia0University of Windsor, OntarioNormative theories of argumentation tend to assume that logical and dialectical rules suffice to ensure the rationality of argumentative discourse. Yet, in everyday debates people use arguments that seem valid in light of such rules but nonetheless biased and tendentious. This article seeks to show that the rationality of argumentation can only be fully promoted if we take into account its ethical dimension. To substantiate this claim, I review some of the empirical evidence indicating that people’s inferential reasoning is systematically affected by a variety of biases and heuristics. Insofar as these cognitive illusions are typically unintentional, it appears that arguers may be biased despite their well-intended efforts to follow the rules of critical argumentation. Nevertheless, I argue that people remain responsible for the rationality of their arguments, given that there are a number of measures that they can (and ought to) take to avoid such distortions. I highlight the importance of argumentational virtues and critical thinking to rational debates, and describe a set of indirect strategies of “argumentative self-control”.https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/3530Argumentative self-controlargumentational virtuesbiasescritical thinkingemotional attachmentethics of argumentation |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Vasco Correia |
spellingShingle |
Vasco Correia The Ethics of Argumentation Informal Logic Argumentative self-control argumentational virtues biases critical thinking emotional attachment ethics of argumentation |
author_facet |
Vasco Correia |
author_sort |
Vasco Correia |
title |
The Ethics of Argumentation |
title_short |
The Ethics of Argumentation |
title_full |
The Ethics of Argumentation |
title_fullStr |
The Ethics of Argumentation |
title_full_unstemmed |
The Ethics of Argumentation |
title_sort |
ethics of argumentation |
publisher |
University of Windsor |
series |
Informal Logic |
issn |
0824-2577 2293-734X |
publishDate |
2012-06-01 |
description |
Normative theories of argumentation tend to assume that logical and dialectical rules suffice to ensure the rationality of argumentative discourse. Yet, in everyday debates people use arguments that seem valid in light of such rules but nonetheless biased and tendentious. This article seeks to show that the rationality of argumentation can only be fully promoted if we take into account its ethical dimension. To substantiate this claim, I review some of the empirical evidence indicating that people’s inferential reasoning is systematically affected by a variety of biases and heuristics. Insofar as these cognitive illusions are typically unintentional, it appears that arguers may be biased despite their well-intended efforts to follow the rules of critical argumentation. Nevertheless, I argue that people remain responsible for the rationality of their arguments, given that there are a number of measures that they can (and ought to) take to avoid such distortions. I highlight the importance of argumentational virtues and critical thinking to rational debates, and describe a set of indirect strategies of “argumentative self-control”. |
topic |
Argumentative self-control argumentational virtues biases critical thinking emotional attachment ethics of argumentation |
url |
https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/3530 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT vascocorreia theethicsofargumentation AT vascocorreia ethicsofargumentation |
_version_ |
1721378103041720320 |