Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Virtue and Arguers


Is a virtue approach in argumentation possible without committing the ad hominem fallacy? My answer is affirmative, provided that the object study of our theory is well delimited. My proposal is that a theory of argumentative virtue should not focus on argument appraisal, as has been assumed, but on those traits that make an individual achieve excellence in argumentative practices. An agent-based approach in argumentation should be developed, not in order to find better grounds for argument appraisal, but to gain insight into argumentative habits and excellence. This way we can benefit from what a virtue argumentation theory really has to offer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.

    I will use the terms “cogent” and “cogency” throughout the article referring to the good quality of an argument according to the standards of informal logic; that is, an argument is cogent if it has acceptable premises, if the premises are relevant to the conclusion, and if the premises are sufficient or provide good grounds for the conclusion (see Govier 2010, p. 87).

  2. 2.

    The terms “rebut” and “undercut” are defined in Pollock (1992, p. 4).

  3. 3.

    I must thank an anonymous reviewer for this observation.

  4. 4.

    Another example that Aberdein presents and that might turn out to be equally problematic is the criticism of intelligent design theorists (Aberdein 2014, p. 87). Aberdein highlights the fact that ID theorists ignore relevant work and evidence, and hence display argumentative vice. But, as an anonymous reviewer pointed out to me, it is the evidence itself that undermines their arguments, not their argumentative vices. The fact that they ignore relevant work and evidence simply makes it more likely that their arguments are wrong.

  5. 5.

    I owe this observation to Cristina Corredor.

  6. 6.

    I believe that Aberdein (2014) is right and sometimes the arguer’s character might be relevant when assessing an argument, but I also believe that in general this is not the case.


  1. Aaronson S (2008) Ten signs a claimed mathematical breakthrough is wrong.

  2. Aberdein A (2007) Virtue argumentation. In: van Eemeren FH, Blair JA, Willard CA, Garssen B (eds) Proceedings of the sixth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation. SicSat, Amsterdam, pp 15–19

  3. Aberdein A (2010) Virtue in argument. Argumentation 24(2):165–179

  4. Aberdein A (2014) In defence of virtue: the legitimacy of agent-based argument appraisal. Informal Logic 34(1):77–93

  5. Battaly HD (2010) Attacking character: ad hominem argument and virtue epistemology. Informal Logic 30(4):361–390

  6. Bowell T, Kingsbury J (2013) Virtue and argument: taking character into account. Informal Logic 33(1):22–32

  7. Brockriede W (1972) Arguers as lovers. Philos Rhetor 5(1):1–11

  8. Cohen D (2007) Virtue epistemology and argumentation theory. In: Hansen HV (ed) Dissensus and the search for common ground. OSSA, Windsor, pp 1–9

  9. Cohen DH (2009) Keeping an open mind and having a sense of proportion as virtues in argumentation. Cogency 1(2):49–64

  10. Cohen DH (2013a) Skepticism and argumentative virtues. Cogency 5(1):9–31

  11. Cohen DH (2013b) Virtue, in context. Informal Logic 33(4):471–485

  12. Gilbert MA (1997) Coalescent argumentation. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah

  13. Gilbert MA (2014) Arguing with people. Broadview Press, Peterborough

  14. Govier T (2010) A practical study of argument. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont

  15. Johnson RH (2000) Manifest rationality: a pragmatic theory of argument. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah

  16. Paglieri F (2015) Bogency and goodacies: on argument quality in virtue argumentation theory. Informal Logic 35(1):65–87

  17. Paul R (1993) Critical thinking, moral integrity and citizenship: teaching for the intellectual virtues. In: Critical thinking. How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world, Chapt. 13. Foundation for Critical Thinking, Santa Rosa CA, pp 255–268

  18. Pollock JL (1992) How to reason defeasibly. Artif Intell 57:1–42

  19. Tsai G (2014) Rational persuasion as paternalism. Philos Public Aff 42(1):78–112

  20. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge University Press, New York

  21. Walton D (2006) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, New York

  22. Zagzebski LT (1996) Virtues of the mind. Cambridge University Press, New York

Download references


The first draft of this paper benefited from discussions with Javier González de Prado, Susana Monsó, Alejandro Díaz, Marco Antonio Joven Romero and Paula Olmos. I also presented it at the 8th ISSA Conference on Argumentation in Amsterdam, where I received valuable comments. I am especially grateful to Luis Vega and Cristina Corredor, who commented on subsequent versions of the paper, as well as to two anonymous reviewers that contributed greatly to sharpen my ideas. Finally, I must thank Daniel Slee for revising my English. This research was funded by a scholarship from the UNED.

Author information

Correspondence to José Ángel Gascón.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gascón, J.Á. Virtue and Arguers. Topoi 35, 441–450 (2016).

Download citation


  • Arguers
  • Argumentation
  • Ad hominem
  • Virtue