Practical reasoning in argumentative polylogues

Abstract

In this paper I investigate the relationship between the argument scheme of practical reasoning and multi-party argumentation defined here as an argumentative polylogue. I first focus on the causal premise (“Let us do X, because X leads to Y, and Y is desirable”) typically taken to signify X as either a necessary or a sufficient means to reach Y. I investigate a third option – a “conducive” means, which is neither necessary nor sufficient, but still worth taking. Second, I consider the notion of “the best means”. Assuming that alternative means/options are advocated by different parties to argumentation, we end up with a multi-party deliberation where different contrary alternatives are debated. Multi-party deliberation can on the basis of this be understood as a special case of argumentative polylogue in which proposals for various contrary courses of action are critically examined.Keywords: Argumentation, deliberation, polylogue, practical reasoning.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.