Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 4:3 (2015) ► pp.243–285

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

A popperian approach to rational argumentation in applied ethics

 | Università degli Studi di Sassari
Published online: 28 January 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.3.01bac
As a consequence of Hume’s famous is-ought problem, it may seem that no rational justification of a moral statement can ever be inferentially provided, and no argument typically used in applied ethics would ever deserve the title of rational justification. This paper aims to propose a fallibilist, non-foundationalist account of rational justification of a moral standpoint based on rational argumentation. This account will be developed within a noncognitivist theory of morality — a framework that seems to constitute the most challenging context for a similar attempt. First, the paper shows how we can have a good rational justification of a moral claim also if its (necessary) moral premises are neither indubitable nor properly inferentially justified, as long as we adopt what is called a Popperian solution to the “problem of prescriptive basic statements”. Second, it argues that a good rational justification of a moral claim does not need to be deductively valid. Using the idea that implicit presumptions introduced by invalid inferences can be monitored by a number of related critical questions, the article distinguishes between fallacious and non-fallacious invalid arguments, and examines how a use of an invalid non-fallacious argument can count as a rational justification of a moral position in applied ethics. However, applied ethics must do its part, and must be explicitly based on rational argumentation.
References (58)
Albert, Hans. 1968. Traktat über kritische Vernunft. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. English Edition 1985. Treatise on Critical Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arras, John D. 1991, “Getting Down to Cases: The Revival of Casuistry in Bioethics.” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 161: 29–51 Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1929. Problemy tvorchestva Dostoevskogo. Leningrad: Priboĭ. Second Edition 1963. Problemy poetiki Dostoevskogo. Moskva: Sovetskiĭ pisatel. English Edition 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beauchamp, Tom L. 2003. “The Nature of Applied Ethics”. In A Companion to Applied Ethics, ed. by R.G. Frey and Christopher Heath Wellman, 1–16. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohman, James, and William Rehg. 2007. “Jürgen Habermas.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <[URL]>.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boudon, Raymond. 1995. Le Juste et le Vrai. Études sur l’Objectivité des Valeurs et de la Connaissance. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chambers, Ted. 1999. The Fiction of Bioethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clouser, K. Danner. 1993. “Bioethics and Philosophy”. Hasting Center Report 23 (6): S10–S11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht/Berlin: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003a. A Systematic Theory Of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003b. “A Pragma-dialectical Procedure for a Critical Discussion.” Argumentation 171: 365–386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freeman, James B. 1991. Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments; A Theory of Argument Structure. Berlin/New York: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fries, Jacob Friedrich. 1807. Neue Oder Anthropologische Kritik der Vernunft (2nd edition). 1828–1831. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilbert, Michael A. 1997. Coalescent Argumentation, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guevara, Daniel. 2008. “Rebutting Formally Valid Counterexamples to the Humean “Is-Ought” Dictum”. Synthese 1641: 45–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Vol. 1: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English edition 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action: Vol. I, Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1983. Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English edition 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. Die nachholende Revolution. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English Translation in Habermas 1993.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991a. Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English Translation in Habermas 1993.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991b. “Einen unbedingten Sinn zu retten ohne Gott, ist eitel: Reflexionen über einen Satz von Max Horkheimer.” In Kritischer Materialismus, ed. by M. Lutz-Bachmann and G. Schmid Noerr. München: Karl Hanser. English Translation in Habermas 1993.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechtes und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English edition 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. Justification and Application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur. Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English edition 2003. The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hare, H.R. 1952. The Language of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1962. “Deductive-Nomological vs. Statistical Explanation.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science III, ed. by Herbert Feigl and Grover Maxwell. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G., and Paul Oppenheim. 1948. “Studies in the Logic of Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 151: 135–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, Scott. 2009. “Good News for the Logical Autonomy of Ethics.” Argumentation 231: 277–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horgan, Terence, and Mark Timmons. 1991. “New Wave Moral Realism Meets Moral Twin Earth.” Journal of Philosophical Research 161: 447–465. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992a. “Troubles on Moral Twin Earth: Moral Queerness Revived.” Synthese 921: 221–260. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992b. “Troubles for New Wave Moral Semantics: The Open Question Argument Revived.” Philosophical Papers 211: 153–172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jensen, Albert, and Stephen Toulmin. 1988. The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joyce, Richard. 2009. “Moral Anti-Realism”. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <[URL]>.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karmo, Toomas. 1988. “Some Valid (but not Sound) Arguments Trivially Span the “Is”-“Ought” Gap”. Mind 971: 252–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mackie, J.L. 1977. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marks, Joel. 1988. “When Is a Fallacy not a Fallacy?” Metaphilosophy 191: 307–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moore, G.E. 1903. Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nelson, Mark T. 1995. “Is It Always Fallacious to Derive Values from Facts?” Argumentation 91: 553–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. “Who Needs Valid Moral Arguments?” Argumentation 171: 35–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “More Bad News for the Logical Autonomy of Ethics.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 371: 203–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm. 1961. “Jugements de Valeur, Justification et Argumentation”. Revue International de Philosophie 58 (4): 325–335.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. Traité de L’Argumentation. La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. English Edition 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peters, R.S. 1966. Ethics and Education. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pidgen, Charles R. 1989. “Logic and the Autonomy of Ethics”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 671: 127–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. “Naturalism”. In A Companion to Ethics, ed. by Peter Singer, 421–431. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1934. Logik der Forschung. Wien: Julius Springler Verlag. English edition 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prinz, Jesse J. 2007. The Emotional Construction of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quine, Willard Van Orman, and J.S. Ullian. 1970. The Web of Belief. New York: Random House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1962. “The Stochastic Revolution and the Nature of Scientific Explanation.” Synthese 141: 200–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. 1989. Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schurz, Gerhard. 1997. The Is-Ought Problem: An Investigation In Philosophical Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1971. “A Defense of Abortion.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1): 47–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 1950. An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1982. “How Medicine Saved the Life of Ethics.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 251: 736–750. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1996. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah (New Jersey): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Ethical Argumentation. Lanham (Maryland): Lexington Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bacchini, Fabio
2016. Epistemology and Responsibility. Corela :HS-19 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. 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