Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
advocacy, argumentation, comparativism, deliberation, polylogue, practical argument
Start Date
18-5-2016 9:00 AM
End Date
21-5-2016 5:00 PM
Abstract
The paper offers a theoretical investigation regarding the sources of normativity in practical argument from the following perspective: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on “good” argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I will address this problem by analysing a detailed structure of practical argument and its varieties. I will argue that given the structure proposed, biased advocacy upholds reasonableness whenever the argumentative activity is adequately designed.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Reader's Reactions
Jean Goodwin, Commentary on “Where is the reasonable?” (May 2016)
Included in
Where is the reasonable? Objectivity and bias of practical argument
University of Windsor
The paper offers a theoretical investigation regarding the sources of normativity in practical argument from the following perspective: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on “good” argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I will address this problem by analysing a detailed structure of practical argument and its varieties. I will argue that given the structure proposed, biased advocacy upholds reasonableness whenever the argumentative activity is adequately designed.
