Cover not available

In:Controversies and Interdisciplinarity: Beyond disciplinary fragmentation for a new knowledge model
Edited by Jens Allwood, Olga Pombo, Clara Renna and Giovanni Scarafile
[Controversies 16] 2020
► pp. 53–74

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

Chapter 3
Particularist understanding of CSR marketing visual arguments

An applied multidisciplinary approach

 | Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BUTE)
 | ELTE – Eötvös Loránd University
Published online: 15 October 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.16.03cso
Abstract
We argue that understanding visual arguments is underdetermined. We address the question concerning how controversial understandings of visual arguments can be handled only by particularism. The distinction between the generalist and the particularist stance taken from moral philosophy offers a way to answer this question. On the particularist view visual principles are incapable of that feat because the visual meaning of a particular visual stimulus is always context-dependent. Instead of appealing to visual principles, the particularist would contrast different situations in a way that their relevant features resemble each other. Understanding a visual argument and the involving context requires analogical reasoning that can be accounted only by particularism. Visual arguments’ valid interpretation can be grasped only within a particularist-like framework.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The tradition of visual argumentation
  • 3.Broad summary of generalism
  • 4.Broad summary of particularism
  • 5.Further thoughts
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
References (25)
References
Berker, S. (2007). Particular Reasons. Ethics, 118(1), 109–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Birdsell, D. S. – Groarke, L. (1996). Toward a Theory of Visual. Argument Argumentation and Advocacy. Summer 1996. 33. 1–10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blair, J. A. (1996). The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy, 1996. 33. 23–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Probative Norms for Multimodal Visual Arguments. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burks, A. W. (1949). SocietyIcon, Index, and Symbol. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 9, No. 4 pp. 673–689. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crisp, R. (2000). Particularizing particularism. In B. Hooker & M. O. Little (Eds.), Moral Particularism (pp. 23–47). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancy, J. (1983). Ethical particularism and morally relevant properties. Mind, 92(368), 530–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Moral Reasons. Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Ethics Without Principles (Vol. 116). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Moral Particularism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013). Retrieved from [URL]
Eemeren, F. H. van et al. (2014). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer Dordrecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fleming, D. (1996). Can there be Visual Arguments? Argumentation & Advocacy. 33 (1996), 11–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groarke, L. P. C. H., Godden, D. (2016). Navigating the Visual Turn in Argument. Argumentation and Advocacy. Vol. 52. 217–235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groarke, L. (1996). Logic, Art and Argument. Informal Logic. Vol. 18, Nos. 2&3 pp. 105–129.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Towards a pragma-dialectics of visual argument. In: Van Eemeren, Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam: SicSat, and Newport News:Vale Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holton, R. (2002). Principles and particularisms. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 67(1), 191–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, R. H. (2003). Why “Visual Arguments” are not Arguments [URL]
Kirchin, S. (2010). The Shapelessness Hypothesis. Philosophers’ Imprint, 10(04).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Keefe, D. (1982). Two concepts of argument and arguing. In J. R. Cox, & C. A. Willard (Eds.). Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 3–23). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Potrc, M., Strahovnik, V., & Lance, M. (2007). Challenging Moral Particularism. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsu, P. S.-H. (2010). Can Morality Be Codified. Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics, 11(1&2), 145–154.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Shapelessness and predication supervenience: a limited defense of shapeless moral particularism. Philosophical Studies, 166(1), 51–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(forthcoming). Can the Canberrans’ Supervenience Argument Refute Shapeless Moral Particularism? Erkenntnis, 1–16.
Walton, D. N. (2014). Argumentation Schemes for Argument from Analogy, in H. J. Ribeiro (ed.), Systematic Approaches to Argument by Analogy, Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue