, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 441–450 | Cite as

Virtue and Arguers

  • José Ángel Gascón


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.


Arguers Argumentation Ad hominem Virtue 



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.


  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 15–19Google Scholar
  3. Aberdein A (2010) Virtue in argument. Argumentation 24(2):165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aberdein A (2014) In defence of virtue: the legitimacy of agent-based argument appraisal. Informal Logic 34(1):77–93Google Scholar
  5. Battaly HD (2010) Attacking character: ad hominem argument and virtue epistemology. Informal Logic 30(4):361–390Google Scholar
  6. Bowell T, Kingsbury J (2013) Virtue and argument: taking character into account. Informal Logic 33(1):22–32Google Scholar
  7. Brockriede W (1972) Arguers as lovers. Philos Rhetor 5(1):1–11Google Scholar
  8. Cohen D (2007) Virtue epistemology and argumentation theory. In: Hansen HV (ed) Dissensus and the search for common ground. OSSA, Windsor, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  9. Cohen DH (2009) Keeping an open mind and having a sense of proportion as virtues in argumentation. Cogency 1(2):49–64Google Scholar
  10. Cohen DH (2013a) Skepticism and argumentative virtues. Cogency 5(1):9–31Google Scholar
  11. Cohen DH (2013b) Virtue, in context. Informal Logic 33(4):471–485Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert MA (1997) Coalescent argumentation. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilbert MA (2014) Arguing with people. Broadview Press, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  14. Govier T (2010) A practical study of argument. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson RH (2000) Manifest rationality: a pragmatic theory of argument. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  16. Paglieri F (2015) Bogency and goodacies: on argument quality in virtue argumentation theory. Informal Logic 35(1):65–87Google Scholar
  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 255–268Google Scholar
  18. Pollock JL (1992) How to reason defeasibly. Artif Intell 57:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tsai G (2014) Rational persuasion as paternalism. Philos Public Aff 42(1):78–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Walton D (2006) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Zagzebski LT (1996) Virtues of the mind. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED)MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations