, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 165–179

Virtue in Argument



Virtue theories have become influential in ethics and epistemology. This paper argues for a similar approach to argumentation. Several potential obstacles to virtue theories in general, and to this new application in particular, are considered and rejected. A first attempt is made at a survey of argumentational virtues, and finally it is argued that the dialectical nature of argumentation makes it particularly suited for virtue theoretic analysis.


Ad hominem Logical universality Virtue epistemology Virtue ethics 


  1. Battaly, H.D. 2000. What is virtue epistemology? In Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy.
  2. Brinton, A. 1995. The ad hominem. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. H.V. Hansen and R.C. Pinto, 213–222. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Code, L. 1984. Toward a ‘responsibilist’ epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45: 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, D. 2005. Arguments that backfire. In The uses of argument, ed. D. Hitchcock and D. Farr, 58–65. Hamilton, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, D. 2007. Virtue epistemology and critical inquiry: Open-mindedness and a sense of proportion as critical virtues. Presented at the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking, APA Central Division Meetings, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  6. Cook, R. 2002. Speech by Robin Cook MP, Leader of the House of Commons, at Press Gallery lunch, Wednesday 12 June 2002.
  7. Falmagne, R.J., and M. Hass. ed. 2002. Representing reason: Feminist theory and formal logic. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. Foot, P. 1978. Virtues and vices. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Foot, P. 2001. Natural goodness. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gabbay, D.M., and J. Woods. 2009. Fallacies as cognitive virtues. In Games: Unifying logic, language, and philosophy, ed. O. Majer, A.-V. Pietarinen, and T. Tulenheimo, 57–98. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hitchcock, D. 2006. The pragma-dialectical analysis of the ad hominem fallacy. In Considering pragma-dialectics: A festschrift for F. H. Van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday, ed. P. Houtlosser and A. van Rees, 109–119. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Hitchcock, D. 2007. Is there an argumentum ad hominem fallacy? In Reason reclaimed: Essays in honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnston, ed. H.V. Hansen and R.C. Pinto, 187–199. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mortimer, J. 1984. Clinging to the wreckage. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Murphy, J.J., and R.A. Katula 1995. A synoptic history of classical rhetoric. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Nussbaum, M.C. 1988. Non-relative virtues: An Aristotelian approach. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 13: 32–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Paul, R. 2000. Critical thinking, moral integrity and citizenship: Teaching for the intellectual virtues. In Knowledge, belief and character: Readings in virtue epistemology, ed. G. Axtell, 163–175. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  17. Powers, L.H. 1998. Ad hominem arguments. In Argumentation and rhetoric, ed. H.V. Hansen, C.W. Tindale, and A.V. Colman. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  18. Sherry, D. 2006. Formal logic for informal logicians. Informal Logic 26 (1): 199–220.Google Scholar
  19. Solum, L.B. 2003. Virtue jurisprudence: A virtue-centered theory of judging. In Moral and epistemic virtues, ed. M. Brady and D. Pritchard, 163–198. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Sosa, E. 1980. The raft and the pyramid: Coherence versus foundations in the theory of knowledge. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5: 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sosa, E. 1991. Knowledge in perspective: Selected essays in epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Statman, D. ed. 1997. Virtue ethics: A critical reader. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1995. Argumentum ad hominem: A pragma-dialectical case in point. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. H.V. Hansen and R.C. Pinto, 223–228. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Walton, D. 1999. Ethotic arguments and fallacies: The credibility function in multi-agent dialogue systems. Pragmatics and Cognition 7: 177–203.Google Scholar
  26. Walton, D. 2006. Poisoning the well. Argumentation 20: 273–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. West, T.G., and G.S. West. 1984. Four texts on Socrates. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Whately, R. 1850. Logic. London: Griffin (first published in 1826).Google Scholar
  29. Woods, J. 2007. Lightening up on the ad hominem. Informal Logic 27 (1): 109–134.Google Scholar
  30. Zagzebski, L. 1996. Virtues of the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Humanities and CommunicationFlorida Institute of TechnologyMelbourneUSA

Personalised recommendations