Other‐Centric Reasoning |
| |
Authors: | Roy Sorensen |
| |
Affiliation: | Department of Philosophy, Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings Drive Wilson Hall, Room 206, St. Louis, MO, USA |
| |
Abstract: | This article considers question‐begging's opposite fallacy. Instead of relying on my beliefs for my premises when I should be using my adversary's beliefs, I rely on my adversary's beliefs when I should rely on my own. Just as question‐begging emerges from egocentrism, its opposite emerges from other‐centrism. Stepping into the other person's shoes is an effective strategy for understanding him. But you must return to your own shoes when forming your beliefs. Evidence is agent centered. Other‐centric reasoning is most striking when both parties partake simultaneously. We are then treated to the spectacle of each side using the other's premises to establish its conclusion. These remarkable debates arise regularly when there is open disagreement about whether a right‐conferring relationship has ended. Those who contend the relationship is abrogated will be tempted to stand on the rights persistently credited to them by their adversary. |
| |
Keywords: | argumentum ad hominem begging the question egocentrism empathy evidentialism |
|
|