{"id":5941,"date":"2021-10-30T09:12:03","date_gmt":"2021-10-30T07:12:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5941"},"modified":"2025-05-08T17:26:47","modified_gmt":"2025-05-08T15:26:47","slug":"waste","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/waste\/","title":{"rendered":"Waste"},"content":{"rendered":"

Argument from WASTE<\/span><\/h1>\n

1. The Scheme<\/span><\/h2>\n

The argument from waste<\/em> is defined by Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca as follows:<\/p>\n

The argument from waste consists in saying that, since one has already begun a task and made sacrifices, that would be wasted if the enterprise were abandoned, one should continue in the same direction. This is the justification given by the banker who continues to lend to his insolvent debtor in the hope of getting him back on his feet in the long run. This is one of the reasons that, according to St. Theresa, leads a person to pray, even in a time of \u00ab\u00a0dryness\u00a0\u00bb. One would give up, she says, if it were not for the fact that<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018… one remembers that one is giving joy and pleasure to the Lord of the garden, that one is careful not to throw away all the service one has rendered, and that one remembers the benefit one hopes to gain from the great effort of frequently dipping the bucket often into the well and drawing it up empty\u2019. (1958], p. 279)<\/span><\/p>\n

Following the tradition established by Aristotle in the Rhetoric<\/em>, the Treatise<\/em> introduces the scheme of waste with a definition immediately followed by two illustrations. The defining topos is given in the following passage:<\/p>\n

Since one has already begun a task and made sacrifices, that would be wasted if the undertaking were abandoned, one should continue in the same direction.<\/span><\/p>\n

The topos is given as a generic sentence<\/em>, outlining a typified situation. The agents are impersonal (\u201cone\u201d); \u201c(one has) already begun<\/em>\u201d \/ \u201cshould continue<\/em>\u201d; \u201ca task<\/em>\u201d, an \u201centerprise<\/em>\u201d; \u201c(one has made) sacrifices\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The topos corresponds to the following script (the elements of the affective scenario are underlined):<\/p>\n

(i) A complex initial situation:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

(a) A task<\/em> has been undertaken in the hope<\/u> of a significant benefit.<\/span>
\n(b) The task is long and difficult: sacrifices<\/em> have been made<\/em>.<\/span>
\n(c) Nothing has been achieved (implicit).<\/span><\/p>\n

(ii)\u00a0<\/strong>These difficult conditions lead to a question:<\/span><\/p>\n

(d) Implicit: <\/span>Despair<\/span> is<\/u> looming<\/strong>; it is possible and one is tempted<\/u><\/em> to stop: \u201cShould I continue?<\/em>\u201d This key point is not explicitly mentioned in the scheme.<\/span>
\n(e) The situation is now radicalized, because there is a risk of losing everything:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0Either (e1) I \u201cgive up<\/em>\u201d\u00a0and all the efforts<\/em> is wasted.<\/span>
\n\u2014 Or (e2), I continue, \u201choping<\/u><\/em>\u201d that things will eventually get better.<\/span><\/p>\n

This key element, hope<\/u>, is not mentioned in the scheme, it only appears in the first example.<\/span><\/p>\n

(e2) can be derived from (e1) by applying the opposite scheme:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0giving up<\/em>\u00a0and losing<\/em> everything<\/span>
\ncontinuing<\/em> and not losing, or even to\u00a0 (implicitly) winning<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

(iii)<\/strong> Conclusion: A decision, actually a bet: \u201cone should continue in the same direction<\/em>\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

All these conditions are crucial, e.g. (e). If it were a cumulative task (like weight training), then one could justify the decision to stop by saying that, well, \u201cit’s something anyway\u201d.<\/p>\n

The scheme is structured by a concatenation of emotions:<\/p>\n

Hope \u2192 Te<\/span>mptation of Despair \u2192 Renewed Hope<\/strong><\/p>\n

2. Related Forms<\/span><\/h2>\n

The scheme of waste is related to the proverbial \u201cyou don’t stop in the middle of the river<\/em>\u201d, to which one can reply \u201ceither you stop or you drown yourself<\/em>\u201d. It is vulnerable to a counter-discourse such as, \u201cwe have already lost enough time this way<\/span><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

S<\/strong>lippery Slope<\/span><\/h3>\n

The scheme of waste ratifies the slippery slope<\/a> argument, \u201cwe must not start, because, if we start, we will not be able to stop.<\/em>\u201d The latter scheme justifies an initial abstention, whereas the argument of waste is that of perseverance in action, see direction<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Sunk Cost Fallacy<\/span> <\/strong><\/h3>\n

The sunk cost argument is discussed in Walton 2002, Walton & al. 2008, pp. 326-327. Economic theory distinguishes between sunk costs<\/em> (retrospective costs), which have already been incurred and are therefore irrecoverable, and future costs<\/em>. According to this theory, in decision-making, only future costs should be considered in decision making. It follows that considering past costs and sacrifices already made is irrational and fallacious (Wikipedia, Sunk cost).
\nThe banker must know how to evaluate the situation of his debtor at any moment and then, according to this evaluation alone, take his losses, as he knows when and how to take his profits.<\/p>\n

3. Examples<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/h1>\n

The following example introduces a formula often associated with this scheme when it is used to justify the continuation of a war \u201cThen they would have died for nothing!<\/em>\u201d:<\/p>\n

\u201cWithdrawing is tantamount to admitting that all our boys died for nothing!\u201d claims [John McCain (1)<\/sup> fan] Private Carl Bromberg, upon returning home.
\n<\/span>\u00a0(1)<\/sup> Republican presidential candidate in the 2008 United States presidential election.
\nMarianne<\/em>, March 1-10, 2008, p. 59.<\/span><\/p>\n

The key elements of the scheme are scattered throughout the passage (our emphasis):<\/p>\n

He [the philosopher Alain<\/em>] does not believe in war in the name of law. From the end of 1914 on, he favored a peace of compromise, and he followed closely, through the Tribune de Gen\u00e8ve<\/em> (1)<\/sup> sent to him by the Hal\u00e9vy household, anything that looked like the beginning of a negotiation, however fragile.<\/em> But he had no illusions: precisely because it is so <\/em>horrible<\/em>, so murderous, so blind, so total, war is very difficult to stop<\/em><\/span>. It does not belong to the category of armed conflicts that can be stopped by cynical princes who believe that the costs outweigh the possible gains, and that the game is not worth the candle. It is led by patriots, honest men elected by their people, who are more and more imprisoned every day after the decisions of July 1914<\/em>(2)<\/sup>. <\/span>The suffering has been so great, the deaths so numerous that no one dares to pretend that they were not necessary<\/span>.<\/em> And how can we go on without being called traitors? The longer the war continues, the longer it will last<\/span>.<\/em> It kills democracy, from which it nevertheless receives what perpetuates its course.
\n<\/span>(1)<\/sup> A Swiss newspaper (2)<\/sup> Date of the declaration of war.
\n<\/span>Fran\u00e7ois Furet, [The Past of an Illusion<\/em>], 1995[1]<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

For the method<\/strong> of identifying a topos in a passage, see argument scheme<\/a>, which uses the argument of waste<\/span> as an example.<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> Fran\u00e7ois Furet, Le Pass\u00e9 d’une illusion. Essai sur l’id\u00e9e communiste au XXe si\u00e8cle<\/em>. Paris: Robert Laffont & Calmann-Levy, 1995, p. 65. [The Past of an Illusion. Essay on the Communist Idea in the Twentieth Century].<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Argument from WASTE 1. The Scheme The argument from waste is defined by Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca as follows: The argument from waste consists in saying that, since one has already begun a task and made sacrifices, that would be wasted if the enterprise were abandoned, one should continue in the same direction. This is the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5941","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=5941"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5941\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14206,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5941\/revisions\/14206"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}