Journal of Business Ethics 175 (3):519-535 (2022)

Abstract
By synthesizing the argumentation theory of new rhetoric with research on heuristics and motivated reasoning, we develop a conceptual view of argumentation based on reasoning motivations that sheds new light on the morality of decision-making. Accordingly, we propose that reasoning in eristic argumentation is motivated by psychological or material gains that do not depend on resolving the problem in question truthfully. Contrary to heuristic argumentation, in which disputants genuinely argue to reach a practically rational solution, eristic argumentation aims to defeat the counterparty rather than seeking a reasonable solution. Eristic argumentation is susceptible to arbitrariness and power abuses; therefore, it is inappropriate for making moral judgments with the exception of judgments concerning moral taboos, which are closed to argumentation by their nature. Eristic argumentation is also problematic for strategic and entrepreneurial decision-making because it impedes the search for the right heuristic under uncertainty as an ecologically rational choice. However, our theoretical view emphasizes that under extreme uncertainty, where heuristic solutions are as fallible as any guesses, pretense reasoning by eristic argumentation may be instrumental for its adaptive benefits. Expanding the concept of eristic argumentation based on reasoning motivations opens a new path for studying the psychology of reasoning in connection to morality and decision-making under uncertainty. We discuss the implications of our theoretical view to relevant research streams, including ethical, strategic and entrepreneurial decision-making.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10551-020-04659-2
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,355
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Thinking, Fast and Slow.Daniel Kahneman - 2011 - New York: New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
The Uses of Argument.Stephen E. Toulmin - 1958 - Cambridge University Press.
Risk, Uncertainty and Profit.Frank Knight - 1921 - University of Chicago Press.
The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation.Chaïm Perelman & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca - 1969 - Notre Dame, IN, USA: Notre Dame University Press.

View all 88 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A System of Argumentation Forms in Aristotle.Simon Wolf - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (1):19-40.
Feminist Perspectives on Argumentation.Catherine E. Hundleby - forthcoming - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Weakness of Will and Motivational Internalism.Voin Milevski - 2017 - Philosophical Psychology 30 (1-2):44-57.
Plato's Meno and the Possibility of Inquiry in the Absence of Knowledge.Filip Grgic - 1999 - Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch Fur Antike Und Mittelalter 4 (1):19-40.
False Ἔvδοα and Fallacious Argumentation.Colin Guthrie King - 2012 - History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis 15 (1):185-199.
Resolving Arguments Accurately.Mike Allen & NancyA Burrell - 1990 - Argumentation 4 (2):213-221.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-10-27

Total views
7 ( #1,071,809 of 2,519,622 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #271,073 of 2,519,622 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes