A fundamental problem arises concerning much of our language about groups. The problem is this: we apply to groups the intentional language of emotions, attitudes, and beliefs. Such language is paradigmatically individual in application and yet we apply it to groups of all sizes – small, medium, large and very large – and of varying degrees and kinds of organization. In important contexts, we refer to groups not only as doing things and being accountable for what they do, but as having attitudes and intentions related to their actions. Groups may be said not only to undertake actions but to be resentful, hateful, generous, compassionate, accepting, suspicious or trusting. They may be said to hold beliefs and make value judgments, and reach decisions on the basis of these. Corporate boards and parliaments, for example, are organized groups empowered to act for still larger groups. They take decisions and act – and when they do so, it is on the basis of beliefs and attitudes which underpin their intentions and actions. Suppose, for instance, that a corporate board reaches a decision to spend millions on exploratory drilling in some area of the Arctic. Why? Its decision is made intelligible on the grounds that it knows the price of oil to be high and rising, and has evidence implying that the area in question contains oil. Or a parliamentary body might reach a decision to send peacekeeping troops to a particular country, on the basis of beliefs about the risks and needs of the people in that country, and the feasibility of its troops making a constructive difference in that context.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Cohen, S. (2001). States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dwyer, S. 2003. Reconciliation for Realists. In C.A.L. Prager & T. Govier (Eds.), Dilemmas of Reconciliation. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Fatah, T. (2006, February 5). What would the Prophet have done? Globe and Mail.
French, P. (1984). Collective and Corporate Responsibility. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gilbert, M. (1987). Modelling collective belief. Synthese, 73, 105–203.
Govier, T. (1987). Problems of Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris/de Gruyter.
Govier, T. (1997). Social Trust and Human Communities. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Govier, T. (1999). The Philosophy of Argument. Newport News, NJ: Vale Press.
Govier, T. (2002). Forgiveness and Revenge. London: Routledge.
Halbwachs, M. (1980). The Collective Memory. New York: Harper and Row Colophon Books.
Hume, D. (1975). In L.A. Selby-Bigge & P.H. Nidditch, A Treatise of Human Nature (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Johnson, R. (2000). Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
May, L. (1987). The Morality of Groups. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Moody-Adams, M. (1997). Fieldwork in familiar places: Morality, culture and philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rose, F. (2006, February 19). Why I published those cartoons. Washington Post.
Tutu, D. (1999). No Future Without Forgiveness. New York: Doubleday.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck-Henkemans, A. F. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2003). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., & Woods, J. (1975). Composition and division. Studia Logica, 36, 381–406.
Walton, D. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1963). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Govier, T. (2009). Duets, Cartoons, and Tragedies: Struggles with the Fallacy of Composition. In: van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B. (eds) Pondering on Problems of Argumentation. Argumentation Library, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9164-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9165-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)