Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
accountability, argument from sign, conductive argument, evaluative claim, evaluative adjectives, fact-value distinction, symptomatic argument, type of standpoint
Start Date
18-5-2016 9:00 AM
End Date
21-5-2016 5:00 PM
Abstract
What counts as a good defence of the conduct of a political agent? I formulate an answer combining insights from argumentation scholarship on the different types of standpoints and the schemes suitable to defend them with insights from philosophical literature (fact vs. value, theoretical vs. practical reasoning … etc). The goal is to make a proposal that is best suitable for examining the type of evaluative claims that is typically discussed in accountability practices.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Reader's Reactions
Susana Nuccetelli, Commentary on Dima Mohammed’s “How to Argue (Well) About Evaluative Standpoints? Argumentation in Accountability Practice” (May 2016)
Included in
What's in a good argument about evaluative claims? Argumentation in accountability practices
University of Windsor
What counts as a good defence of the conduct of a political agent? I formulate an answer combining insights from argumentation scholarship on the different types of standpoints and the schemes suitable to defend them with insights from philosophical literature (fact vs. value, theoretical vs. practical reasoning … etc). The goal is to make a proposal that is best suitable for examining the type of evaluative claims that is typically discussed in accountability practices.
