Pragmatic argument

PRAGMATIC Argument 

1. The topos

The topos of pragmatic argumentation corresponds to topos (scheme of argument) #13 in Aristotle’s Rhetoric:

Since in most human affairs the same thing is accompanied by some bad or good result, another topic consists in employing the consequence to exhort or dissuade, accuse or defend, praise or blame. (Rhet., II, 23; Freese, p. 311)

Thus, since positive and negative effects can always be attributed to any plan of action, public or private, under discussion or already partialy implemented, this plan can always be directly supported and praised by emphasizing its positive effects (actual or alleged), or attacked and blamed by emphasizing its negative effects, (actual or alleged).

Pragmatic argumentation requires a chain of argumentative operations:

(0) A question: Should we do this?

(1) A cause-to-effect argument: the intended action coupled with an alleged causal law, will produce some mechanical effect.

(2) This effect is evaluated positively or negatively.

(3) Taking this consequence as an argument, an effect-to-cause argument transfers the positive or negative evaluation of the effect to the cause, i.e. the intended action, the positive or negative assessment of the effect,

— to recommend it, if the value judgment carried on it is positive: answer Yes to the question
— or to reject it, if it is negative: answer No to the question.

With regard to this last operation, pragmatic argumentation can be seen to be a kind of effect to cause argumentation, see consequences. In fact, it is very different from diagnostic argumentation, which reconstructs a cause from a given consequence. Pragmatic arguments do not reconstruct causes; they transfer to the cause value judgments that have already been made about the consequences.

In scientific fields, pragmatic arguments are based on established facts, “You smoke”; they are based on a statistical-causal law “Smoking increases the risk of cancer”; and thus lead to the conclusion “Your smoking increases your risk of getting lung cancer.” Since no one likes to get cancer, negative judgment is retroactive to the cause “I (should) stop smoking.”
In socio-political fields as in everyday reasoning the causal deduction that characterizes stage (1) is reduced to a series of vaguely plausibly correlated elements, i.e., to a kind of “causal novel”, and, usually to a mere metonymic transfer “this will result in that”; see metonymy.

2. Against pragmatic arguments

The effect is the end, the proposed action is a means to that end, and the evaluation made of the end is immediately transferred to the means: in other words, the end justifies the means. Consequently, the pragmatic argument can be countered by an objection that rejects the means on a priori moral grounds.

2.1 Indirect refutation through unintended perverse effects

Positive pragmatic arguments are currently refuted by arguments about their negative and perverse effects.

Nouvel Observateur[1] — A.C., in the book you published with C.B., “The Domestic Dragon”, you support the legalization of drugs. Aren’t you afraid of being seen as working for the devil?
AC. — Instead of legalization, we prefer to talk about domestication, because it implies a progressive strategy […]. It will not eliminate the drug problem. But it is a more rational solution, that will eliminate the mafias, reduce crime, and also reduce all the fantasies that feed the use of drugs, and are part of the marketing of drugs.
J.PJ. — I think that legalization would create a pull effect, the consequences of which cannot be completely controlled. The more of a product is available on the market, the more potential users have access to it. This would lead to many more people taking drugs.
Le Nouvel Observateur [The New Observer], October 12-18, 1989.

A.C. argues pragmatically, emphasizing the positive effects that legalizing the drug will have, “the elimination of the mafias, the reduction of crime, and also the reduction of all the fantasies”. She does not specify by what mechanism, but this is certainly not a fallacious move in a first turn of speech, considering the constraints of length in interviews.

This assertion could be countered by denying the postulated causal link, for example by arguing that “legalization will not have such reducing effects but will only shift mafias and delinquents to new occupations and fantasies to new objects. » J.-P. J. chooses to refute the assertion by claiming that  this measure would have a perverse “pull effect”, diametrically opposed to the good intentions of A.C. (note the will / would opposition in the argument and in its refutation).
This effect is called perverse because it is unexpected, unintended by the person proposing the measure. The opponent gives her credit for it: J.-P. J. does not accuse A.C. of proposing this measure so that “many more people will take drugs”.

Now, the evaluation of an effect as negative by one can be considered as positive by the other.

L1:        — But this policy would destroy our research group!
L2:        — That is exactly the plan.

This case falls under Hedge’s rules (§2.2) #5 and #6 (1838, pp. 159-162):

    1. No one has a right to accuse his adversary of indirect motive.
    2. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them.

To assert that the opponent’s policy would lead the country to ruin and chaos is a pragmatic refutation of the policy by its negative consequences. To assert that this policy is being deliberately implemented by the opponents in order to lead the country to ruin and chaos, and thus create conditions favorable to their dictatorship, is to accuse them of conspiracy, and would justify the use of force against them. see norms; rule; evaluation.

This accusation of having a hidden agenda also refers to the strategy of refuting public good reasons with hidden intentions, see motives.

2. Against the pragmatic argument: direct refutation.

The pragmatic argument is characterized by the fact that the evaluation of the measure is indirect. In the case of drug legalization, a direct evaluation of the measure might be “This despicable tendency to solve problems by legalizing anything and everything should be stopped. So, I won’t even consider your argument.”
Another direct objection to the measure might be that drug addicts have a problem with law and moral prohibition. It follows that, legalizing the drug would actually increase addiction.

[1] A French weekly political and cultural publication.