Conclusions of theoretical reasoning are assertions-or at least speech acts belonging to the class of assertives, such as hypotheses, predictions or estimates. What, however, are the conclusions of practical reasoning? Employing the concepts of speech act theory, in this paper I investigate which speech acts we perform when we're done with an instance of a practical argument and present its result in a linguistic form. To this end, I first offer a detailed scheme of practical argument suitable for an external pragmatic account (rather than an internal cognitive account). Resorting to actual examples, I then identify a class of actioninducing speech acts as characteristic conclusions of practical argument. I argue that these speech acts-promises, orders, pieces of advice, proposals, and others-differ chiefly depending on the agent of the action induced (me, us, you, them) and their illocutionary strength.
Abstract:The paper offers a theoretical investigation into the sources of normativity in practical argumentation. The chief question is: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on "good" argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I address this question by analysing a detailed structure of practical argument and its varieties, and by discussing the tenets of a comparative approach to practical reason. I argue that given the comparative structure proposed, reasoned advocacy in argumentative activity upholds reasonableness whenever that activity is adequately designed. I propose some basic rules for such a design of practical argumentation.Résumé: Cet article offre un examen théorique des sources de normativité dans l'argumentation pratique. La question principale qui nous occupe est la suivante: avons-nous besoin d'argumentateurs objectifs et non-biaisés ou pouvons-nous compter sur de "bons" processus argumentatifs susceptibles de neutraliser les biais individuels? Je traite d'abord cette question à travers une analyse de la structure détaillée de l'argumentation pratique et de ses variétés et ensuite par une discussion des fondements d'une approche comparative de la raison pratique. Je défends l'idée que selon la structure comparative proposée, tout plaidoyer raisonné dans une activité argumentative maintient la raisonnabilité tant que cette activité est conçue de manière appropriée. Je propose quelques règles de base pour une telle conception de l'argumentation pratique.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.