I recently found out that I had been collecting books by accident. Rearranging some shelves, I discovered I had several books with similar titles, all acquired at different times, and for different reasons, but with a strikingly similar theme: Winning Arguments; How to Win An Argument; How to Win Every Argument; The Art of Always Being Right; and Winning with Deception and Bluff. Publishers, I thought, must be convinced that winning arguments is something many people value\u2014and value enough to pay for a book that promises to tell them how.<\/p>\n
This conclusion was somewhat weakened by a browse through the outwardly most ruthless of these works, Winning with Deception and Bluff, where I found a section entitled “Never Win An Argument”:<\/p>\n
“So you win the argument. You\u2019ve silenced the other. What exactly have you won? You\u2019ve exposed an error or fallacy in the other\u2019s thinking, compelled him to change an opinion or attitude he may have nurtured for a long time. That\u2019s never pleasant. He may respect you more, but he\u2019ll like you less. True, you\u2019re one up, but strategically you\u2019re one down.”<\/p>\n
The author’s ruthless streak comes out in the next sentence: “What did you lose? The rapport necessary to put over whatever manipulative maneuver you had in mind.” But whatever the motive, there’s something right here. All too often, the experience of losing an argument is an unpleasant one. If we rely on arguments to change people’s minds, that’s a problem, because giving people unpleasant experiences doesn’t seem too likely to make them agree with us. (Or to win over bystanders, for that matter.)<\/p>\n
What can we do to remedy this problem? For the last decade or so, I have been one of several people making the case for a virtue theory of argumentation. Virtue theories and argumentation are as old as philosophy itself, if not older, but the explicit application of the former to the latter is a much more recent development. Most philosophical studies of argument adopt the same perspective as my accidental book collection. They emphasize technical aspects of argument success or failure, but they pay much less attention to the broader context of arguing, and generally ignore how the character of the people who take part in arguments bears on that success or failure. Virtue theories of argument seek to redress the balance, shifting the perspective away from arguments as products and onto arguers as people.<\/p>\n
One way to explore the character of arguers is to look at their virtues and vices. Many instances of the traditional fallacies that logicians and argumentation theorists have been discussing since Aristotle can be analysed in terms of the vices of the arguer who employs them (or the audience that falls for them). But arguers can exhibit other vices that lead arguments to malfunction in other ways. Some of these vices may correspond pretty closely to those familiar from ethical contexts: we may be cowardly in not defending a position we believe to be right, contemptuous of our opponent, or unfair in how we present an opposing position. Other vices may be unique to argumentation, such as unwillingness to revise our own position or unwillingness to engage in argument in the first place. A fuller inventory of the vices of argument promises to help explain how even the arguments that succeed by traditional lights can seem so unsatisfactory. Conversely, cultivation of the corresponding virtues of argument should improve the conduct and outcome of our arguments.<\/p>\n
If I’m right, then what the books in my collection miss is that winning arguments is seldom good enough. If we can win virtuously, then we have a chance of finding lasting and mutually acceptable resolutions to our disputes. If we just try to win arguments by whatever means necessary, we shouldn’t be surprised if our temporary resolutions rapidly fall apart in acrimony.<\/p>\n
Image is “Debate and Oratory”. Image for first page of “Debate and Oratory” section of 1909\u00a0Tyee<\/i>\u00a0(yearbook of the University of Washington) unsigned but attributed to Olaf E. Caskin [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"I recently found out that I had been collecting books by accident. Rearranging some shelves, I discovered I had several books with similar titles, all acquired at different times, and […]","protected":false},"author":1386,"featured_media":199,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[60,23,61,5,22,31,64,63,62],"custom_author":[76],"class_list":["post-197","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-argumentation","tag-changing-attitudes-in-public-discourse","tag-character","tag-debate","tag-humility-and-conviction-in-public-life","tag-philosophy","tag-resolution","tag-vice","tag-virtues","custom_author-aberdein-andrew"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-3b","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":624,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/epicurus-on-losing-arguments\/","url_meta":{"origin":197,"position":0},"title":"Epicurus on Losing Arguments","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"March 11, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Epicurus\u2019s Vatican Saying #74 runs: \u201cthe one who loses in a philosophical dispute gains more the more he learns.\u201d\u00a0 I remember reading that line as an undergraduate, thinking it curious and perhaps a bit perverse.\u00a0 How would Epicurus himself apply this to his own views, after critique from the likes\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/Epicurus-BW.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/Epicurus-BW.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/Epicurus-BW.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":516,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/why-even-bother-with-political-debate\/","url_meta":{"origin":197,"position":1},"title":"Why even bother with political debate?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"October 8, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Debates about politics, whether in public forums or in private conversations, often seem to go nowhere. This is particularly true when the participants have diametrically opposed perspectives on how the world works and how it should work. Even when people manage to stay civil, which of course is not always\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":709,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/putting-academic-skepticism-to-work\/","url_meta":{"origin":197,"position":2},"title":"Putting Academic Skepticism to Work","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"July 29, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"The Academic Skeptics were philosophers who modeled themselves on Socrates and his method of questioning.\u00a0 When the Delphic Oracle reported that no one was wiser than him, Socrates reasoned that whatever wisdom he had was to be found in his recognizing that he does not know many important things.\u00a0 And\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":685,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/argument-repair\/","url_meta":{"origin":197,"position":3},"title":"Argument Repair","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 3, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"It\u2019s easy to blame current problems with public discourse on the brevity of on-line communication. People are moving away from blogs to image exchanges. TLDR. Limited word counts (such as on Twitter) and the combination of immediacy with anonymity lend to verbal fighting. Quick comebacks receive rewards of \u201clikes\u201d and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/argument-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/argument-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/argument-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/argument-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/argument-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":843,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/moralism-wins-morality-loses-moralism-as-a-vice-in-the-public-debate\/","url_meta":{"origin":197,"position":4},"title":"Moralism wins, morality loses. Moralism as a vice in the public debate","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"January 27, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Federico Zuolo \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Back in the 20th century, it was not uncommon to hear a leftist accusing a conservative of being \u201cmoralist\u201d. Indeed, conservatives were attacked for their pruderies, bigotry and unjustified moralist worries about sexual liberation, drugs, female role, and so on; while a common tenet\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/01\/Theriot_finger_mobile_7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/01\/Theriot_finger_mobile_7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/01\/Theriot_finger_mobile_7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/01\/Theriot_finger_mobile_7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":908,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/ethicists-hold-your-horses-part-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":197,"position":5},"title":"Ethicists, hold your horses (Part 1)","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 18, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Fleur Jongepier\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Karin Jongsma If intensive care beds or ventilators run out, who should be saved? And how should such decisions be morally justified? These are horrible, indeed impossible, decisions that clinicians currently face, or may be\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/05\/corona.2_0_image001-300x200.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/330px-1909_Tyee_-_Debate_and_Oratory_illustration.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1386"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=197"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":202,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197\/revisions\/202"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/199"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=197"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}