Perelman Today on Justice and Argumentation

Abstract

This chapter is a reflection upon how some of Perelman’s central claims stand up to more recent theoretical developments. Perelman’s intellectual journey from the study of justice to the study of argumentation is briefly examined, and the distinguishing features of argumentation that Perelman proposed are scrutinized. The claims examined and the developments reviewed are highly selective: the relation between justice and argument, and the relation between justice, dialectic and rhetoric. I argue that Perelman’s view that justification aims at the modification of behavior is shared by distinguished theorists today, but that it is at odds with his contrast between proof and argumentation. The upshot is that, while some of the claims of Perelman examined here require revision, those views of 50 years ago tend to stand up remarkably well.

Reprinted, with permission, from Takeshi Suzuki, Takayuki Kato & Aya Kubota (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Argumentation: Argumentation, the Law and Justice, (pp. 18–22). Tokyo: Japan Debate Association, 2008.