Deliberating over legislative ends
An inventory of goal-(de)legitimizing argument schemes
This paper outlines a non-exhaustive inventory of presumptive argument schemes that can be used by legislators to rationally argue for and against the legitimacy of legislative ends. The inventory has both a descriptive and normative dimension. The inventory is descriptive because it is partly based on the empirical observation of arguments actually used by legislators in a sample of lawmaking debates. However, the inventory is also normative because – as I shall argue in this paper – the schemes identified in the sample are presumptive arguments schemes. They are therefore schemes with a claim to rationality, provided that certain conditions are met. The schemes included in the inventory are: the scheme of instrumental argumentation, the scheme from unintended consequences, the scheme from values, the schemes from model and antimodel, and the schemes from social demand.
Keywords: practical rationality, instrumental rationality, discourse principle, legislative debates, argument scheme from consequences, argument scheme from values, argument scheme from model, argument schemes from social demand
- 1.The rationality of legislation: Can we rationally justify legislative ends?
- 2.Rational deliberation about legislative ends: A Habermasian account
- 3.Causal goal-(de)legitimizing schemes in lawmaking debates
- Scheme of instrumental argumentation
- Scheme from unintended consequences
- 4.Non-causal goal-(de)legitimizing schemes in lawmaking debates
- Scheme from values
- Schemes from model and antimodel
- Schemes from social demand
- 5.The normative force of the argument schemes in the inventory
- 6.Concluding remarks
Published online: 17 December 2020
Atkinson, Katie, and Trevor Bench-Capon
Blair, J. Anthony
1998 “Walton’s Argument Schemes from Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development”. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Ed. By Frans H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Rob Grootendorst and Charles Willard. Retrieved from: http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-1998-waltons-argumentation-schemes-for-presumptive-reasoning-a-critique-and-development/
Bohman, James, and William Rehg
2017 “Jürgen Habermas.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. By Edward N. Zalta. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/habermas/
Freeman, James B.
2013 “What types of arguments are there?”. OSSA Conference Archive. 501. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/50
Historia de la Ley Nº 20.634
Marcilla Córdoba, Gema
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
Schwartz, Shalom H.
Van der Weide, Tom L., Frank Dignum, John-Jules Ch. Meyer, Henry Prakken, and Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk
Van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst
Walton, Douglas, and Erik C. W. Krabbe
Walton, Douglas, and Chris Reed
2002 “Argumentation Schemes and Defeasible Inferences.” Paper prsented at the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lyon.
Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno