Cover not available
Part of
Persuasion in Specialized Discourse: A multidisciplinary perspective
Edited by Chiara Degano, Dora Renna and Francesca Santulli
[Argumentation in Context 22] 2024
► pp. 233–248

Chapter 11
Bentham on rhetoric

The misuse of fallacies

| University of Paris | University of Turin

Bentham’s “Book of Fallacies” (1824) presents itself as a form of rhetorical self-defence. The author insists that the fallacies are invariably used as counter-arguments, blocking political reform and preventing social progress. He claims that the use of such paralogical techniques is a sure sign of corruption. However, he denies the efficacy of such rhetorical arguments, insisting that only the weak-minded and ignorant are likely to be persuaded. A comparison of the “Book of Fallacies” with his “Anarchical Fallacies” shows that his own preferred mode of argument is analytic and atomist rather than rhetorical.

Bentham expressed radical views on contentious subjects of public importance. His proposals are still widely discussed in academic circles, but were rarely taken up by posterity. His wholesale denunciation of rhetoric in all its forms may appear irrational; however, if he believed that his ideas were rejected for purely fallacious reasons, then his attitude may be explained as a reluctant recognition of the power of rhetoric over reason.

Keywords: argumentation, atomist, authority, Bentham, fallacies, holistic, reinterpretation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Wholesale rejection of rhetoric
    • 2.1Nomenclature and classification
    • 2.2Ad Autoritatem
  • 3.His own rhetorical technique
    • 3.1‘Atomism’
  • 5.Polemic refutation
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References
Austin, J. L.
(1954) “Unfair to facts”. In Collected papers (1979). OUP.Google Scholar
Bentham J.
(1776) “Short review of the declaration”. In Lind, J. Answer to the declaration of the American congress. Cadell, Water, Newell.Google Scholar
Bentham, J.
(1968) Collected Works. 11 Vols. [URL]Google Scholar
Blackstone, W.
(1765–69) Commentaries on the laws of England. Clarendon Press. (4 vols.)Google Scholar
Brockriede, W. E.
(1955) “Bentham’s criticism of rhetoric and rhetoricians”. Quarterly Journal of Speech, Volume 41/4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burke, E.
(1790) Reflections on the French revolution. Doddsley.Google Scholar
Carroll, L.
(1895) “What the Tortoise said to Achilles”, Mind, 14/4, 278–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, G.
(1892) “Uber Sin und Bedeutung” in Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100, pp. 25–50. = “On sense and reference”. In P. Geach and M. Black (eds.) Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege (pp. 56–78). Blackwell, (1952).Google Scholar
Gazdar, G.
(1976) “On performative sentences”, Semantikos 1/3, 37–62.Google Scholar
Grootendorst R.
(1997) “Jeremy Bentham’s handbook of political fallacies”. In D. Walton, A Brinton, eds. Historical foundations of informal logic (pp. 114–124). Ashgate.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L.
(1979) Fallacies. Methuen.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A.
(1982) Essays on Bentham: Jurisprudence and Political Philosophy. OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locke, J.
(1690) Essay concerning human understanding. Clarendon Press. (1975). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H.
(1975) “The meaning of ‘meaning’”. In Mind, language and reality. Philosophical papers 2. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Secor, M. J.
(1989) “Bentham’s Book of Fallacies: Rhetorician in Spite of Himself”. Philosophy and Rhetoric 22/2, 83–94.Google Scholar