Cover not available

In:Let's talk politics: New essays on deliberative rhetoric
Edited by Hilde Van Belle, Kris Rutten, Paul Gillaerts, Dorien Van De Mieroop and Baldwin Van Gorp
[Argumentation in Context 6] 2014
► pp. 13–25

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Aristotle on deliberation

Its place in ethics, politics and rhetoric

Published online: 30 April 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.6.01koc
Aristotle differs from most later philosophers in distinguishing clearly between epistemic reasoning, which aims for truth, and practical reasoning, which does not. How can he posit this distinction and yet not dismiss practical reasoning as flattery and manipulation, as Plato did? The answer lies in the concepts of deliberation (boulē, bouleusis) and deliberate choice (proairesis). They link Aristotle’s rhetoric, ethics, and politics together and help provide definitions of all three: Ethics is about deliberate choices by individuals. Politics and rhetoric are about the collective deliberate choices by the polity: politics is about making these choices well so that the good life of all citizens is optimally secured; rhetoric is the principal means to do this. These links have not been much discussed by scholars, probably because few studies range across these three Aristotelian ‘arts’; a proper discussion of them should draw on modern work in ethics, political science, and rhetoric. These key concepts and Aristotle’s discussions of them offer inspiration for modern theories of ‘deliberative democracy,’ citizenship, argumentation, debate, and the public sphere.
References (20)
References
Aristotle. (1995). The complete works of Aristotle. The revised Oxford translation . I-II. 6. printing with corrections. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1991). On rhetoric: a theory of civic discourse . Trans. George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford UP, 1991.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brockriede, W. and Ehninger, D. (1960). Toulmin on argument: an interpretation and application. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 46, 44–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957a). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy 65, 135–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1957b). An economic theory of democracy . New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010). Rhetoric in democracy: a systemic appreciation. Political Theory 38, 319–339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fortenbaugh, W.W. (1975). Aristotle on emotion: a contribution to philosophical psychology, rhetoric, poetics, politics and ethics . New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1997). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society . Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Cambridge: Polity Press. (Original: Die Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Band I: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung , 1981.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnstone, C. L. (1980). An Aristotelian Trilogy: ethics, rhetoric, politics, and the search for moral truth. Philosophy & Rhetoric 13,: 1–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kenny, A. (1966). Practical inference. Analysis 26, 65–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1979). Aristotle’s theory of the will . London: Duckworth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kock, C. (2003). Multidimensionality and non-deductiveness in deliberative argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, and A. F. S. Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view: theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 155–171). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2007). Norms of legitimate dissensus. Informal Logic 27, 179–196.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2009). Choice is not true or false: the domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation 23, 61–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larmore, C. (1996). Pluralism and reasonable disagreement. In The Morals of Modernity (pp.152–173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nichols, M. P. (1987). Aristotle’s defense of rhetoric. The Journal of Politics 49, 657–677. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. (1986). The fragility of goodness . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Triadafilopoulos, T. (1999). Politics, speech, and the art of persuasion: toward an Aristotelian conception of the public sphere. The Journal of Politics 61, 741–757. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yack, B. (2006). Rhetoric and public reasoning: an Aristotelian understanding of political deliberation. Political Theory 34, 417–438. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Craig, Robert T.
2023. Deliberative Play. American Behavioral Scientist 67:8 ► pp. 951 ff. DOI logo
de Castro Caeiro, António
2023. Aiming for True Life as an Act of Choice. In Aristotle on Truth, Dialogue, Justice and Decision [Law and Philosophy Library, 144], ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Husted, Emil & Majken Mac
2021. Instituting Deliberation: Three Stages of Bottom-Up Policymaking in Denmark’s Alternative Party. In Soziologie der Parteien [Politische Soziologie, ], ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue