Advertisement

Philosophy & Technology

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 179–189 | Cite as

The Virtuous Troll: Argumentative Virtues in the Age of (Technologically Enhanced) Argumentative Pluralism

  • Daniel H. Cohen
Research Article

Abstract

Technology has made argumentation rampant. We can argue whenever we want. With social media venues for every interest, we can also argue about whatever we want. To some extent, we can select our opponents and audiences to argue with whomever we want. And we can argue however we want, whether in carefully reasoned, article-length expositions, real-time exchanges, or 140-character polemics. The concepts of arguing, arguing well, and even being an arguer have evolved with this new multiplicity and diversity; theory needs to catch up to the new reality. Successful strategies for traditional contexts may be counterproductive in new ones; classical argumentative virtues may be liabilities in new situations. There are new complications to the theorist’s standard questions—What is an argument? and Who is an arguer?—while new ones move into the spotlight—Should we argue at all? and If so, why? Agent-based virtue argumentation theory provides a unifying framework for this radical plurality by coordinated redefinitions of the concepts of good arguers and good arguments. It remains true that good arguers contribute to good arguments, and good arguments satisfy good arguers, but the new diversity strains the old unity. Ironically, a unifying factor is provided by examining those paragons of bad arguers, argument trolls whose contributions to arguments are not very good, not really contributions, and, ultimately, not genuine argumentation.

Keywords

Argumentation Good argument Virtue Virtuous arguer Trolls 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Fabio Paglieri for his encouragement, Andrew Aberdein for his exceptional philosophical acumen and scholarship, and anonymous referees for their extraordinarily helpful input, as well as Alex Sarappo and Hiya Islam, occasional trolls, without whom this paper would not have been possible.

References

  1. Aberdein, A. (2010). Virtue in argument. Argumentation, 24, 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aberdein, A. (2014). In defence of virtue: the legitimacy of agent-based argument appraisal. Informal Logic, 34(1), 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aberdein, A. and Cohen D. H. (2016) Virtues and arguments: an introduction. Topoi forthcoming.Google Scholar
  4. Annas, J. (2011). Intelligent virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Axtell, G. (1997). Recent work in virtue epistemology. American Philosophical Quarterly, 34, 410–430.Google Scholar
  6. Axtell, G. (2000). Introduction. In G. Axtell (Ed.), Knowledge, belief, and character (pp. 10–29). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Bowell, T., & Kingsbury, J. (2013). Virtue and argument: taking character into account. Informal Logic, 33(1), 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 97–102. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Code, L. (1984). Toward a responsibilist epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 45, 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, D. H. (2009). Sincerity, santa claus arguments, and dissensus in coalitions. Argument cultures: proceedings of the 8th international conference of the Ontario society for the study of argumentation (OSSA). Windsor: OSSA.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, D. H. (2013a). Skepticism and argumentative virtues: Sextus, Nagarjuna, and Zhuangzi. Cogency (Chile), 5(1), 9–31.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, D. H. (2013). The virtuous kibitzer: commentary on Katharina von Radziewsky’s “The virtuous arguer: One person, four characters.” [Now: Stevens 2015]. Virtues and Arguments: Proceedings of the 10 th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA). Windsor: OSSA.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, D. H. (2013c). Virtue, in context. Informal Logic, 33(4), 471–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frankfurt, H. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Greco, J. (1999). Against reliabilism. Philosophical Perspectives: Epistemology, 13, 273–296.Google Scholar
  16. Kornblith, H. (1999). Distrusting reason. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 23, 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mooney, C. (2014). Internet trolls really are horrible people: narcissistic, machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html.
  18. Moulitsas, M. (2008). Dems: Ignore ‘concern trolls’. TheHill.com. Capitol Hill Publishing Corp. Retrieved 2009-03-25.Google Scholar
  19. Paglieri, F. (2015). Bogency and goodacies: on argument quality in virtue argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 35(1), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Phillips, W. (2015). This is why we can’t have nice things: mapping the relationship between on-line trolling and mainstream culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sosa, E. (2000). Reliabilism and intellectual virtue. In G. Axtell (Ed.), Knowledge, belief, and character (pp. 19–32). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Stevens, K. (2016). The virtuous arguer: one person, four roles. Topoi: Special Issue on Virtues and Arguments (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  23. Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  24. Zagzebski, L. (1996). Virtues of the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyColby CollegeWatervilleUSA

Personalised recommendations