Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Start Date
18-5-2016 9:00 AM
End Date
21-5-2016 5:00 PM
Abstract
This paper analyzes Hasan Nassrallah’s strategic use of retrospective/post-hoc arguments not only as means to justify and legitimize already taken actions, during the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006, but also as a defense mechanism to rebut oppositions’ counter-claim (that his actions were not the right ones to do because of their negative consequences). Following Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) suggestion that to justify past actions arguers develop their arguments in relation to counter-arguments, I propose a structure for retrospective argument whose function is to show that the positive consequences of the already taken action (A) outweigh both the negative consequences of doing (A) and the negative consequences of not doing (A). Eventually, legitimizing the doing of (A). Retrospective critique in this paper will aim to demarcate the legitimating function of appealing to moral values and religious obligations that all Lebanese are expected to cherish.
References
Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced Students. London: Routledge.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Paper
Reader's Reactions
Jeff Noonan, Commentary on Rania El Nakkouzi: “Legitimizing Past Actions Through Appeals to Moral Values” (May 2016)
Legitimizing Past Actions through Appeals to Moral Values
University of Windsor
This paper analyzes Hasan Nassrallah’s strategic use of retrospective/post-hoc arguments not only as means to justify and legitimize already taken actions, during the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006, but also as a defense mechanism to rebut oppositions’ counter-claim (that his actions were not the right ones to do because of their negative consequences). Following Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) suggestion that to justify past actions arguers develop their arguments in relation to counter-arguments, I propose a structure for retrospective argument whose function is to show that the positive consequences of the already taken action (A) outweigh both the negative consequences of doing (A) and the negative consequences of not doing (A). Eventually, legitimizing the doing of (A). Retrospective critique in this paper will aim to demarcate the legitimating function of appealing to moral values and religious obligations that all Lebanese are expected to cherish.
References
Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced Students. London: Routledge.
