Introduction
Argumentation can be understood in two primary disciplines: rhetoric and dialectic. Rhetoric focuses on persuasiveness, while ratiocination looks at the conditions of validity, both formal and informal (Potthast et al., 2019). While the levels of normativity sufficiently account for the dynamics of argumentation discourse, scholars have hinted at a more comprehensive account of arguers’ behavior subject to the norms of discussion, reasoning, and persuasiveness: ethical argumentation. Plato maintained a virtue-based concept of ethical argumentation (Wild, 2022). The philosopher challenged people’s perspective of life and believed that reason guides moral progress. As evident in Plato’s theorems, ethical arguments are pervasive in dialogues. Other works further assert the significance of taking an honest approach to argumentation. In line with these assertions, dialectic and rhetoric rules are insufficient to guarantee rational thinking during arguments. Instead, an ethical approach is imperative to show how arguers can adjust their behavior relative to views. Argumentation and ethics are social aspects that guide human behavior; Plato, Socrates, and the Sophists and theoretical approaches such as the invitational rhetoric, dehumanization, the elaboration likelihood model, and dialogic communication make different claims.
Dialectics and Invitational Rhetoric
Normative theories assume dialectic and rhetoric rules are sufficient to ensure arguments’ rationality. These rules outline correct reasoning, and arguers who follow them are free from fallacious reasoning. However, an individual may likely fail to reach a systematically balanced viewpoint when solely relying on their assumptions about the acceptable norms of argumentation. Furthermore, several irrational factors affect people’s inference without their awareness. Principally, an arguer reasons per dialectic and logic rules while avoiding any known fallacy but still producing biased arguments (Potthast et al., 2019). For instance, a politician’s arguments against the United Kingdom exiting the European Monetary System (EMS) may be biased despite efforts to have a balanced view because of selective premise choice or failure to take account of relevant and available evidence (Schimmelfennig, 2018). From a logical point of view, arguments can be correct but challenge the sufficiency of arguing unreasonably.
Ethics and stances account for the tension between responsibility and freedom since they differ depending on society and culture. Essentially, they rely on an arguer such that one may choose their stance and whether to follow ethical guidelines. Given that such choices have consequences on self and others, individuals must take responsibility as part of a community or society. The same content may produce different results, significantly when it advances under a different stance or ethical guidelines. Jecker (2020) demonstrated that despite the outcomes of dialogues, ethics addresses the fundamentals of argumentation. In this view, arguers should adopt particular stances or follow specific ethical guidelines. Nonetheless, as different norms exist for effective argumentation, models of ethical argumentation differ.
Invitational Rhetoric
Invitational rhetoric was developed as a reaction against traditional views of rhetoric. Foss and Griffin (2020) categorized traditional theories into four groups: advisory, conquest, benevolent, and conversion. Conversion revolves around the desire to change or influence other people’s behavior, as in marketing (Foss & Griffin, 2020). Either winning or long specific events primarily characterize conquest rhetoric. Benevolent rhetoric entails creating awareness or assisting others to be better.
Conversely, advisory rhetoric responds to requested assistance such as therapy sessions (Foss & Griffin, 2020). All four factors favor persuasion, and rhetoric as a form of persuasion that aims at influencing others is unethical. For example, this can be illustrated in debates about abortion which often necessitate invitational rhetoric. Foss and Griffin stated intrinsic value, self-determination, and equality as primary principles of invitational rhetoric. In particular, the imminent matter revolves around recognizing people’s worth and value.
Some arguers use persuasion to suggest control over others or gain a sense of self-worth. However, the vital aspect should be ethical argumentation, urgency, and the impact of influence. Foss and Griffin (2020) suggested that invitational rhetoric should draw out silent arguers to add more information and prevent discussion monopolization. Invitational rhetoric does not force people to take a specific position but gives people the opportunity to consider different perspectives. The idea might fail to work, thus, the need for alternative models. Therefore, the rhetorical situation should determine what becomes relevant and the need to merge related approaches.
Following the above assertions, normative spaces do not support ethical argumentation. For instance, taking an argument seriously that an individual should not comment will negatively impact the central point of making that claim. Moreover, a dialectical contradiction arises when someone insists on taking an argument seriously, which might not be the case (Collinson, 2020). An arguer who seriously makes an argument should refer to the ethical concerns that they should not claim their opinions as solely accurate while dismissing counterarguments without pertinent reasons. The point of ethical argumentation will be lost if an individual speaks for another person with whom they are supposed to be having a dialogue or arguing.
Dehumanization and Elaboration Likelihood Model
Among the critical accounts of ethical argumentation is the analysis of dehumanization. In context, dehumanization involves a lack of individuality, which follows the claim that dehumanized individuals fail to reason like others or communicate effectively. Furthermore, there is consistency in predicting social connection as enabling positive outcomes with the well-known benefits of ethical argumentation. In the same view, ethical argumentation increases self-esteem, confidence, meaning, and assertiveness. Moreover, dialogic communication promotes dialogue by encouraging speakers to be assertive while presenting ideas to their audience (Wirtz & Zimbres, 2018). Conversely, unethical argumentation and being socially disconnected reduce intelligent thought and self-esteem. The central feature of ethical argumentation is the capacity to allow other people to experience, be consciously aware, and have higher-order reasoning.
The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) provides scholars with a means of understanding which attitudes might be formed or changed, including dehumanization. Griffith et al. (2018) developed the ELM to explain the change in attitude and behavior while processing stimuli. Thus, the ethical approach is pertinent in ELM as it involves persuasion. In essence, the model focuses on the thinking processes that can occur in an attempt to change other people’s views through communication. A variable can impact individual attitudes in several ways and influence persuasion through different mechanisms (Griffith et al., 2018). Therefore, the ELM posits that people can differ in how they think about a message, like dehumanization and their position. Likewise, cognitive dissonance has ethical concepts, given people often justify their behavior when experiencing moral or mental distress (Kaaronen, 2018). Factors influencing the arguer’s motivation may be specific to the context of the issues.
Dialogic Communication
Dialogic ethics focuses on the communication relationship between people and occurs in conversations. Through this system, conscience can be judged by the actions and attitudes each participant in the dialogue portrays. It requires the elimination of one’s desires and needs to facilitate ethically oriented conversations with another (Wirtz & Zimbres, 2018). Dialogic ethics depends on respect and requires learning from what is presented by each participant (Wirtz & Zimbres, 2018). It begins with a unique understanding of personal good and evil and the ground taken. There is a need for honest communication as it helps recognize that historical situations, narrative environments, and person shape, restrain, and guide the actions taken (Wirtz & Zimbres, 2018). Through this, there is value in ethics compared to the Sophists, who believed truth never exists.
The Sophists
The Sophists were teachers in ancient Greece who believed in one or several subject areas like rhetoric, philosophy, and music. They had no values or ethics but focused on succeeding and winning (Leyh, 2019). The ability to express oneself eloquently was essential at the time of their existence. As a result, Sophists were the individuals who held this incredible skill of public speaking. They were educators of thought and not of truth and always expected their learners to argue both sides of a debate and not take a stand. The main argument the Sophist made was that there was no objective truth (Leyh, 2019). A fact was one that a person believed was correct, even if it was wrong. The argument was the primary difference between Socrates’ and Sophist ideologies on what defined absolute truth.
The Ethics of Plato and Socrates
In ethical argumentation, individuals often seek to justify their actions and beliefs or whether their case sufficiently presents reasons for having different perspectives. Scholars, including philosophers, regularly engage in such ethical argumentations. Furthermore, most people do the same at work, school, home, and other social settings. Plato and Socrates presented various principles that validate the fundamentals of ethical concerns in arguments (Leyh, 2019). The codes are deduced in dialogues that question their validity. Moreover, justifying ethics in argumentation implies the reality of the ethic of the normative argumentation theory. In understanding ethical argumentation, it is vital to ensure arguers acknowledge specific facts and abide by set moral codes; adherence to these conditions is necessary to engage in argumentation.
Ethics can be widely cited in Plato’s work and throughout his dialogues. Additionally, significant themes in the Sophist examine the context of being and sophistry that can potentially corrupt one’s well-being and overall health. Considering Plato’s philosophical inquiries, ethical concerns can be found in various dialogues (Leyh, 2019). Further, Socrates showed people their claims about virtue, courage, and friendship, which people gave, including uninterrupted speeches on various topics (Swanson, 2019). Thus, ethics can be applied in numerous contexts, from metaphysical theorizing to political contexts. Given this, it is crucial to focus on the role of Plato’s ethical arguments in the dialogues in which they occur. Extracting ethics from these dialogues to outline Plato’s theory is sufficient. Although different between conversations, Plato’s discussions about ethical argumentation fall into specific patterns with distinctive structures.
Plato was among the first philosophers to form a tradition of ethical argumentation. Recurring themes can be seen across Plato’s work to unify into a moral theory. In Euthydemus, Socrates argued whether everyone wants to be happy and do well (Swanson, 2019). People often think about their happiness by gaining certain things in life. The discussion contrasts the conventional opinion of Plato and Socrates on ethics and seeking pleasure. Compared to Socrates, Plato was less impressed with unanimous beliefs but failed to challenge them philosophically. Instead, he asserted that people hold on to something important, but their grasp of happiness is low (Grewal, 2022). Most people radically have wrong views on good things, consequently influencing how people can become happy. For the most part, Plato’s effort in explaining value is focused on improving people’s views about goodness and the things that matter. While people often assume that virtue is a minor subject in argumentation, Plato thinks otherwise, for it is through virtue that people can communicate effectively.
Plato’s ethics raises questions on the norms underlying argumentation that people in dialogues logically accept. However, there are dialectical truths, including normative and descriptive statements, which are argumentatively acceptable, and dialectical contradictions, which are untenable. Every justified argument does not qualify as a dialectic truth; argumentative conclusions refer to the nature of argumentation (Grewal, 2022). A person does not dialectically contradict themselves by convincing another person that the Earth is spherical but sets out to persuade others by rational argument that they are incapable of comprehending logical arguments. In asking and answering questions, an arguer without contradiction can maintain that their opponent in a discussion is not ethical. Therefore, in dialogues, individuals must accept the dialectic truth that Earth appears round. Additionally, they should consider it a debate in which they can communicate and argue ethically and have unique perspectives unless contrary and sufficient reasons are deduced.
In the Euthydemus, Socrates gets Cleinias to list the components of a happy life. Cleinias included virtue with no particular prominence, such as health, power, status, and beauty. Socrates argued that there is a crucial difference between conventional and integrity: convectional goods are conditional (Altman, 2021). Therefore, a radical distinction can be drawn on ethical argumentation. Hence, it can be removed from the Euthydemus in the account of ethical argumentation that when people are guided by ignorance, then the premise results in opposite results, but if one is driven by wisdom and intelligence, then greater good is achieved (Swanson, 2019). In this view, ethics is sufficient for argumentation and has more tremendous implications for dialogues. Silencing an opponent through intimidation is not permissible in ethical argumentation. More specifically, such actions adversely impact the conditions under which ethical argumentation can serve its primary goal. Further, it is a dialectic truth that arguers should respect the integrity of their opponents during argumentation because it casts doubt on one’s motive in asking or answering questions.
Conclusion
Ethical argumentation makes a premise indisputable such that arguers are committed to ensuring consistency and rationality in their assertions. In debates and dialogues, people must choose how to engage others, especially concerning ethical guidelines and the stance one uses. For this reason, honesty, accountability, and consistency are crucial to argumentation stances. Capturing arguers’ attitudes and intentions toward others within a given debate context indicates their awareness, enabling them to communicate more constructively. Generally, ethical argumentation explores truth and tests assumptions to arrive at tentative solutions. Therefore, ethical argumentation serves as a means of personal and community empowerment.
References
Altman, W. H. F. (2021). Philosophy, wisdom and happiness in Plato’s “Lysis” and “Euthydemus”. Thaumàzein| Rivista di Filosofia, 9(1), 384-395.
Collinson, D. L. (2020). ‘Only connect!’: Exploring the critical dialectical turn in leadership studies. Organization Theory, 1(2), 1-22. Web.
Foss, S. K., & Griffin, C. (2020). Inviting understanding: A portrait of invitational rhetoric. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Grewal, G. L. (2022). Thinking of death in Plato’s Euthydemus: A close reading and new translation. Oxford University Press.
Jecker, N. S. (2020). Privacy beliefs and the violent family: Extending the ethical argument for physician intervention. In Women, Medicine, Ethics and the Law (pp. 395-399). Routledge.
Kaaronen, R. O. (2018). A theory of predictive dissonance: Predictive processing presents a new take on cognitive dissonance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2218. Web.
Leyh, T. (2019). Isocrates’ pragmatic reflective life at Euthydemus 304d–306e. Australasian Philosophical Review, 3(2), 206-213. Web.
Potthast, M., Gienapp, L., Euchner, F., Heilenkötter, N., Weidmann, N., Wachsmuth, H., Stein, B. and Hagen, M. (2019). Argument search: assessing argument relevance. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 1117-1120). Web.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2018). Brexit: differentiated disintegration in the European Union. Journal of European public policy, 25(8), 1154-1173.
Swanson, C. (2019). Socratic dialectic between philosophy and politics in Euthydemus 305e5-306d1. Plato Journal, 19.
Wild, J. D. (2022). Plato’s modern enemies and the theory of natural law. BoD–Books on Demand.
Wirtz, J. G., & Zimbres, T. M. (2018). A systematic analysis of research applying ‘principles of dialogic communication’ to organizational websites, blogs, and social media: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of public relations research, 30(1-2), 5-34. Web.