On the Argumentative Strength of Indirect Inferential Conditionals

Inferential or epistemic conditional sentences represent a blueprint of someone’s reasoning process from premise to conclusion. Declerck and Reed (2001) make a distinction between a direct and an indirect type. In the latter type the direction of reasoning goes backwards, from the blatant falsehood of the consequent to the falsehood of the antecedent. We first present a modal reinterpretation in terms of Argumentation Schemes of indirect inferential conditionals (IIC’s) in Declerck and Reed (2001). We furthermore argue for a distinction between epistemic-modal strong and deontic-modal weak IIC’s. In addition, we extend the category of the indirect inferential conditionals in order to include several other deontic-modal subtypes. On the basis of the undesirability of the consequent the hearer in these cases infers that the antecedent is also undesirable. In this way the rhetoric-argumentative strategy of Reductio ad Absurdum is extended from the realm of deductive reasoning to that of practical reasoning.     

论优先问题——对罗尔斯《正义论》的一种分析

<正义论>的理论骨干是一系列的优先性命题,其基本形式为A优先于B.通过道德风俗考古学式的痕迹分析考察,可以离析出理论家们关注的基本价值.优先性命题中的关系词"优先于"的含义是变化的,优先性命题的成立隐含着各种条件,条件的变化与"优先于"的含义变化之间有一种本质的联系.罗尔斯关于基本善的不可比较的思想和优先性命题的论证之间存在着矛盾,需要寻找新的理论出路来解决这些矛盾.通过对优先问题的分析,折射出<正义论>可以被看作是传统伦理学走向价值伦理学的一种过渡形态的理论.     

论“逻辑在先”的哲学意义

黑格尔曾经指出要进入并研究哲学"需要一种特殊的能力和技巧"[1];柏格森更为明确地讲"研究哲学,就在于扭转思想活动的习惯方向."[2]进而言之,这一扭转乃是进人哲学研究的"门槛",只有跨越了这一门槛,才有可能登堂入室.这一门槛就是:从时间在先转向逻辑在先.     

论公共决策的优先性价值

公共决策关涉价值,且负荷优先性价值。在思想史的维度上,众多学者认同公平是公共决策的优先性价值。在学理层面上,公共决策的公共性和政府的服务性决定公平是公共决策的优先性价值。处于市场经济条件下的政府必须以公共决策的优先性价值为基础正确把握公平与效率的辩证关系。     

论哈贝马斯对道德规范的建构

哈贝马斯把道德规范视为一种主体间性结构,主要从两个方面对道德规范进行建构:一是在先验层面上,渗透重建后的理性即交往理性于道德规范之中,矫正其中的强制性关系和被扭曲部分;二是在现实层面上,通过相互作用建立理想的主体间性结构,依据角色结构的发展促使个体道德资质的形成,凭借原则提供道德依据和资源。哈贝马斯对道德规范的如此建构,确保了道德规范的可论证性和实践有效性,使道德问题重新诉诸一种更完善化的理性观念,最终使道德自我与相关他者实现内在的统一。     

企业伦理规范的发展与建设

企业伦理的观念让企业重新思考其与利益相关者之间的伦理关系。企业伦理的建设要求制定一套具体的行为规范作为企业遵行的标准 ,从而促成了企业伦理规范的产生。企业伦理规范的建立是一项依据企业伦理价值四原理的系统工程 ,其内容可以从企业利益相关者、规范指示程度和指示类型等层面进行构建。     

From Connectives to Argumentative Markers: A Quest for Markers of Argumentative Moves and of Related Aspects of Argumentative Discourse

In this paper, I explore the potential of systematically studying the linguistic surface of discourse for the purposes of identifying markers of argumentative moves and other related categories, such as types of arguments and argumentative strategies. Such a list of argumentative markers can prove useful for the (semi)automatic treatment of a large corpus of texts. After reviewing literature on the linguistic realization of argumentative moves as well as literature on the subject of discourse markers, it becomes clear that the search for representative items of argumentative markers cannot be restricted to those elements marking relations but that it should also include elements that signal a certain function that is of pertinence to argumentative analysis. In this view, argumentative markers can be any single or complex lexical expression as well as a discursive configuration whose presence in a given utterance marks that utterance or the one preceding/following it, or a larger piece of discourse as having a certain argumentative function (as an argumentative move, a type of argument or an argumentative strategy). Examples taken from a French corpus on the controversy surrounding the development and applications of nanotechnology currently under study are used to illustrate the different types of argumentative markers proposed.     

The Practice of Argumentative Discussion

I propose some changes to the conceptions of argument and of argumentative discussion in Ralph Johnson's Manifest Rationality (2000). An argument is a discourse whose author seeks to persuade an audience to accept a thesis by producing reasons in support of it and discharging his dialectical obligations. An argumentative discussion (what Johnson calls argumentation) is a sociocultural activity of constructing, presenting, interpreting, criticizing, and revising arguments for the purpose of reaching a shared rationally supported position on some issue. Johnson's theory of argumentative discussion, with occasional modifications, is derived from this definition as a sequence of 17 theorems. Argumentative discussion is a valuable cultural practice; it is the most secure route to correct views and wise policies.     

Argumentative aspects of indirect proof

While direct proof is widely considered the paradigm of the acquisition of knowledge by deductive means, indirect proof has traditionally been criticized as showing merely that its conclusion is true and not why it is true. This paper accounts for the traditional objection by emphasizing the argumentative role in indirect proof of logical principles such as excluded middle and non-contradiction.     

The Dynamics of Argumentative Discourse

Journal of Philosophical Logic - Arguments have always played a central role within logic and philosophy. But little attention has been paid to arguments as a distinctive kind of discourse, with...     

The Effectiveness of Argumentative Strategies

In this article, I further analyze the notion of the effectiveness of argumentative strategies, introduced in Jovičić, 2001. The most relevant achievements of the theories of reasonable discussion and the theories of persuasion are called to mind with the aim of explaining the mechanism of the argumentative effectiveness. As a result, a procedure for evaluating the effectiveness of argumentative strategies is suggested.     

The Argumentative Structure of Persuasive Definitions

In this paper we present an analysis of persuasive definition based on argumentation schemes. Using the medieval notion of differentia and the traditional approach to topics, we explain the persuasiveness of emotive terms in persuasive definitions by applying the argumentation schemes for argument from classification and argument from values. Persuasive definitions, we hold, are persuasive because their goal is to modify the emotive meaning denotation of a persuasive term in a way that contains an implicit argument from values. However, our theory is different from Stevenson’s, a positivistic view that sees emotive meaning as subjective, and defines it as a behavioral effect. Our proposal is to treat the persuasiveness produced by the use of emotive words and persuasive definitions as due to implicit arguments that an interlocutor may not be aware of. We use congruence theory to provide the linguistic framework for connecting a term with the function it is supposed to play in a text. Our account allows us to distinguish between conflicts of values and conflicts of classifications.

Problem-Solving Argumentative Patterns in Plenary Debates of the European Parliament

The aim of this paper is to describe the way in which argumentative patterns come into being in plenary debate over legislative issues in the European Parliament. What kind of argumentative patterns are to be expected within this macro context? It is shown that the argumentative patterns that come into being in legislative debate in the European Parliament depend for the most part on the problem-solving argumentation that is put forward in the opening speech by the rapporteur of the parliamentary committee report. This argumentation can be pragmatic problem-solving argumentation or complex problem-solving argumentation. The most important prototypical argumentative patterns are investigated in the argumentation put forward by the Members of parliament. This investigation is based on an inventory of the arguments that can in principle be used to support or attack the initial problem-solving argumentation put forward by the rapporteur.     

An Agent-Based Account of the Normativity of Reflective Equilibrium

Philosophia - According to an influential characterisation of reflective equilibrium, it is a kind of algorithm for licensing explicitly normative claims in philosophical inquiries. Call this the...     

In Defence of Agent-Based Virtue Ethics

Abstract

In ‘Against Agent-Based Virtue Ethics’ (2004) Michael Brady rejects agent-based virtue ethics on the grounds that it fails to capture the commonsense distinction between an agent's doing the right thing, and her doing it for the right reason. In his view, the failure to account for this distinction has paradoxical results, making it unable to explain why an agent has a duty to perform a given action. I argue that Brady's objection relies on the assumption that an agent-based account is committed to defining obligations in terms of actual motives. If we reject this view, and instead provide a version of agent-basing that determines obligations in terms of the motives of the hypothetical virtuous agent, the paradox disappears.     

Assessing Workgroup Norms for Civility: The Development of the Civility Norms Questionnaire-Brief

Purpose

This research describes the development and validation of the Civility Norms Questionnaire-Brief (CNQ-B), a 4-item measure designed to assess workgroup climate for civility. Climate for civility is defined as employee perceptions of norms supporting respectful treatment among workgroup members.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Five samples (N?=?2,711) of adult employees, including two from distinct organizations and three from multiple organizations, responded to the CNQ-B and additional measures.

Findings

Evidence for the internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant validity of the CNQ-B was observed. Additionally, evidence for the criterion-related and incremental validity of the CNQ-B was demonstrated as it was a significant predictor of later-assessed incivility experiences and accounted for significant variability in work attitudes beyond incivility experiences and related measures.

Implications

The CNQ-B is a psychometrically sound instrument despite being composed of only four items. The CNQ-B can be used by researchers and practitioners alike to assess climate for civility, to study climate for civility as a precursor to incivility experiences, and to target workgroups that could benefit from interventions (e.g., training) to enhance civility and reduce incivility.

Originality/Value

This is one of the first studies to conduct a rigorous psychometric assessment of a measure of workgroup climate for civility that is grounded in theory and research on workplace civility and incivility. At four items, the CNQ-B is the shortest assessment tool currently available that is designed for this purpose.