What's in a good argument about evaluative claims? Argumentation in accountability practices

Abstract

What counts as a good defence of the conduct of a political agent? I formulate an answer combining insights from argumentation scholarship on the different types of standpoints and the schemes suitable to defend them with insights from philosophical literature. The goal is to make a proposal that is best suitable for examining the type of evaluative claims that is typically discussed in accountability practices.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,628

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

My notes

Similar books and articles

Pragmatic Argumentation in European Practices of Political Accountability.Corina Andone - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (1):1-18.
Commentary on Dima Mohammed’s “How to Argue About Evaluative Standpoints? Argumentation in Accountability Practice”.Susana Nuccetelli - unknown
Purpose, Argument Fields, and Theoretical Justification.Robert C. Rowland - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (2):235-250.
Rhetoric, Cogency, and the Radically Social Character of Persuasion: Habermas's Argumentation Theory Revisited.William Rehg - 2013 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (4):465-492.
The Pragma-Dialectical Reconstruction of Teleological-Evaluative Argumentation in Complex Structures of Legal Justification.Eveline Feteris - unknown
Argument practices.William Keith - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (1):163-179.
Exemplars as evaluative ideals in Nietzsche’s philosophy of value.Jonanthan Mitchell - unknown
Desiring the bad under the guise of the good.Jennifer Hawkins - 2008 - Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):244–264.
Sincerity, Santa Claus Arguments and Dissensus in Coalitions.Daniel H. Cohen - 2009 - In Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of the 9yj Internaional Conferrence of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. OSSA. pp. 1-8.
Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Christopher Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno.
Goals in Argumentation: A Proposal for the Analysis and Evaluation of Public Political Arguments.Dima Mohammed - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (3):221-245.
A normative framework for argument quality: argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation.Ulrike Hahn & Jos Hornikx - 2016 - Synthese 193 (6):1833-1873.
Virtue and Arguers.José Ángel Gascón - 2016 - Topoi 35 (2):441-450.
Does Arguing from Coherence Make Sense?Stefano Bertea - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):433-446.
The small improvement argument.Nicolas Espinoza - 2008 - Synthese 165 (1):127 - 139.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-12-20

Downloads
9 (#1,248,077)

6 months
2 (#1,185,463)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Two Dogmas of Empiricism.W. Quine - 1951 - [Longmans, Green].
Two Dogmas of Empiricism.Willard V. O. Quine - 1951 - Philosophical Review 60 (1):20–43.
Argumentation schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism.W. V. O. Quine - 2011 - In Robert B. Talisse & Scott F. Aikin (eds.), The Pragmatism Reader: From Peirce Through the Present. Princeton University Press. pp. 202-220.

View all 18 references / Add more references