{"id":4398,"date":"2021-08-06T16:05:53","date_gmt":"2021-08-06T14:05:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4398"},"modified":"2025-05-10T15:53:01","modified_gmt":"2025-05-10T13:53:01","slug":"political-arguments-eng","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/political-arguments-eng\/","title":{"rendered":"Political Arguments: Two Collections"},"content":{"rendered":"

POLITICAL arguments<\/span><\/h1>\n

1. The parameters of political debate<\/span><\/h2>\n

Political deliberation is a problem-solving activity. The following interrogative framework groups the most common questions that must be answered before deciding whether or not to adopt or reject a measure of general interest<\/p>\n

Is this measure legal? Fair? Honorable? Timely? Useful? Necessary? Safe? Possible? Easy? Pleasant? What are the foreseeable consequences? (From Nadeau 1958, p. 62).<\/span><\/p>\n

This framework operates on different modes.
\n\u2014 In the interrogative-deliberative mode<\/strong>, it guides a practical decision-making process:<\/p>\n

If you are considering such an action, consider whether it is just, necessary, feasible, glorious, profitable, and whether it will have positive consequences.<\/p>\n

In this case, the set of questions is used as a heuristic. One can take up a responsible political position on a given issue by examining each point and giving a well-reasoned answer to each question.<\/p>\n

\u2014 In the prescriptive-justificatory mode<\/strong>, it helps to develop a global, positive or negative persuasive argumentative script about an issue:<\/p>\n

If you want to support (or to attack) such measure, show that it is (or it is not) just, necessary, etc.<\/p>\n

\u2014 In the analytical-critical mode<\/strong>, it serves to test the completeness of an argumentation<\/p>\n

You argue that this measure is just, necessary, glorious; but you say nothing about its consequences and the practical modalities of its realization.<\/p>\n

In practice, this simple, robust and effective rules applies to any practical public or private decision.<\/p>\n

2. Arguments\/fallacies of parliamentary debate: Bentham\u2019s collection<\/span><\/h2>\n

In The Book of Fallacies<\/em> [1824], Bentham focuses exclusively on fallacious arguments in parliamentary debates. This collection is strongly oriented towards the refutation of conservative discourse, see \u00a0collection (II)<\/a>. In the same spirit, Hirschman has analyzed The Rhetoric of Reaction<\/em> (1991).
\nIn politics, sophists<\/a> are accused of engaging in obstructive or manipulative maneuvers, producing bad arguments in bad faith, rejecting legitimate discussion, and serving dishonest or unpopular ends.<\/p>\n

Bentham distinguishes four main categories of fallacies: fallacies of authority, of danger; of delay, andof confusion.<\/p>\n

(i) Fallacies of authority<\/span><\/h3>\n

See Modesty<\/a>; Threat<\/a>; Politeness<\/a>; Personal Attack<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u00ab\u00a0The wisdom of our ancestors, or Chinese argument; ad verecundiam<\/em>.\u00a0\u00bb (p.69)<\/p>\n

\u2014 \u00ab\u00a0Irrevocable law; ad superstitionem<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.<\/p>\n

\u2014 \u00ab\u00a0Fallacy of vows or promissory oaths; ad superstitionem<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n

The object of this fallacy is the same as in the preceding; but to the absurdity involved in the notion of tying up the hands of generations yet to come is added, in this case, that which consists in the use sought to be made of supernatural power. (p. 104)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u00ab\u00a0No-precedent argument; ad verecundiam<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n

The proposition is of a novel and unprecedented complexion: the present is surely the first time that any such thing was ever heard of in this house. (p. 115)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u00ab\u00a0Self-assumed authority; ad ignorantiam; ad verecundiam<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb (p. 116)<\/p>\n

\u2014 \u00ab\u00a0Self-trumpeter’s fallacy\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n

There are certain men in office who (\u2026) arrogate to themselves a degree of probity, which is to exclude all imputations and all inquiry. (p. 120)<\/p>\n

\u2014 \u00ab\u00a0Laudatory personalities; ad amicitiam<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n

The object of laudatory personalities is to effect the rejection of a measure on account of the alleged good character of those who oppose it. (p. 123)<\/span><\/p>\n

(ii) Fallacies of danger, appeals to fear (ad metum<\/em>) or hatred (ad odium<\/em>) to supress discussion<\/span><\/h3>\n

See Emotion<\/a>; Threat<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cVituperative personalities; ad odium<\/em>\u201d (p. 128). Attacking the person: \u201cImputation of bad design; of bad character; of bad motive; of inconsistency; of suspicious connections; imputation founded on identity of denomination.\u201d (p. 127-128)<\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cHobgoblin argument or: No innovation! ad metum<\/em>\u201d (p. 145) – Innovation leads to anarchy.<\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cFallacy of mistrust – What\u2019s at the bottom?\u201d (p. 154)<\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cOfficial Malefactor’s Screen (ad metum) – Attack us, you attack Government.\u201d (p. 158)<\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cAccusation-Scarer\u2019s Device.\u201d (p. 184)<\/p>\n

(iii) Fallacies of Delay<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

These fallacies play for time, with the intention of \u201cpostponing discussion, with a view of eluding it\u201d. Some are based on stupidity and laziness (Lat. socordia<\/em>):<\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cThe quietist, or \u2018No complaint\u2019 (ad quietem). No one complains, therefore nobody suffers\u201d (p.190); so, no need to change.<\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cFalse consolation (ad quietem)\u201d<\/p>\n

Look at the people there, and there: think how much better off you are than they are. (p. 194)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cProcrastinator\u2019s Argument (ad socordiam<\/em>)\u201d \u00ab\u00a0Wait a little, this is not the time!\u201d (p. 198)<\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cSnail\u2019s Pace Argument (ad socordiam])\u201d:<\/p>\n

One thing at a time! Not too fast! Slow and sure! (p. 201)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cArtful diversion (ad verecundiam)\u201d<\/p>\n

Why that? (meaning the measure already proposed) \u2014 Why not this? \u2014 or this?<\/span> (p. 209)<\/p>\n

(iv) Fallacies of confusion<\/h2>\n

\u201c[Their] object is to perplex, when discussion can no longer be avoided\u201d (p. 213), see personal attack<\/a>; ambiguity<\/a>; ad populum<\/em><\/a>; for ad judicium, <\/em>see matter<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cQuestion-begging appellatives (ad judicium<\/em>)\u201d<\/p>\n

The use of \u201ceulogistic terms\u201d and \u201cdyslogistic or vituperative terms\u201d. (p. 214)<\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cImpostor terms (ad judicium<\/em>)\u201d<\/p>\n

For instance, persecutors in matters of religion have no such word as persecution in their vocabulary; zeal is the word by which they characterize all their actions. (p. 221)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cVague generalities (ad judicium<\/em>)\u201d,<\/p>\n

A fallacy resorted to by those who, in preference to the most particular and determinate terms and expression (\u2026) employ others more general and indeterminate. (p. 230)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cAllegorical idols (ad imaginationem<\/em>)\u201d<\/p>\n

substituting for men\u2019s official denomination the name of some fictitious entity, to whom (\u2026) the attribute of excellence has been attached. Example: Government, for members of the governing body. (p. 258)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cSweeping classifications (ad judicium<\/em>)\u201d<\/p>\n

Ascribing to an individual (\u2026) any properties of another, only because the object in question is ranked in the class with that other. (p. 265)<\/span>
\nExample 1: Kings; Crimes of Kings (\u2026) criminals ought to be punished; kings are criminals, and Louis is a king: therefore Louis ought to be punished). (p. 266)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cSham distinctions (ad judicium<\/em>)\u201d<\/p>\n

Declare your approbation of the good by its eulogistic name, and thus reserve to yourself the advantage of opposing it without reproach by its dyslogistic name (\u2026) Example 1: Liberty and licen- tiousness of the press. (p. 271)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cPopular corruption (ad superbiam<\/em>)\u201d<\/p>\n

The source of corruption is in the minds of the people; so rank and extensively seated is that corruption that no political reform can ever have any effect in removing it: This was an argument brought forward against parliamentary reform. (p. 279)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cAnti-rational fallacies (ad verecundiam)\u201d<\/p>\n

When reason is found or supposed to be in opposition to a man\u2019s interest, his study will naturally be to render the faculty itself and whatsoever issues from it an object of hatred and contempt. (p. 295)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cParadoxical assertions (ad judicium<\/em>)\u201d<\/p>\n

When of any measure, practice or principle the utility is too far above dispute to be capable of being impeached by rea- soning, a rhetorician (\u2026) in a sort of fit of desperation (\u2026) he has assailed it with some vehement note of reprobation or strain of invective\u201d (p. 314). \u201cEx- ample: Good method, a bad thing. (p. 316)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cNon causa<\/em> pro causa (ad judicium<\/em>)\u201d<\/p>\n

When in a system which has good points in it you have a set of abuses (\u2026) to defend; (\u2026) take the abuse you have to defend (\u2026) and to them ascribe the credit of having given birth to the good effects. (p. 328)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cPartiality-preacher\u2019s argument (ad judicium<\/em>)<\/p>\n

\u201cFrom the abuse, argue not against use.\u201d (p. 339) – A discussion\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cThe end justifies the means (ad judicium<\/em>)\u201d – A discussion of the maxim (p. 341).<\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cOpposer-general\u2019s justification (ad invidiam<\/em>)\u201d<\/p>\n

it is not right for a man to argue against his own opinion. (\u2026) If a member of the House of Commons, and in opposition, a measure which to him seems a proper one is brought on the carpet on the ministerial side, it is not right that he should declare it to be, in his opinion, pernicious, and use his endeavours to have it thought so, and treated as such by the House. (p. 344), and reciprocally.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cRejection instead of amendment (ad judicium<\/em>)\u201d<\/p>\n

This fallacy consists in urging in the character of a bar, or conclusive objection against the proposed measure, some consideration, which, if presented in the character of an amendment, might have more or less claim to notice. (p. 349)<\/span><\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Bentham condemns these maneuvers as prima facie<\/em> fallacies, and discusses them further under the corresponding headings.<\/p>\n

He does not express the fallacies under any \u201clogical form\u201d, but presents them in the form of statements which are condensed arguments, sometimes in the form of a slogan. The topoi are getting closer to the discursive clich\u00e9s.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

POLITICAL arguments 1. The parameters of political debate Political deliberation is a problem-solving activity. The following interrogative framework groups the most common questions that must be answered before deciding whether or not to adopt or reject a measure of general interest Is this measure legal? Fair? Honorable? Timely? Useful? Necessary? Safe? Possible? Easy? Pleasant? What […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4398","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4398"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4398\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14227,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4398\/revisions\/14227"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}