Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Arguing to Defeat: Eristic Argumentation and Irrationality in Resolving Moral Concerns

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

By synthesizing the argumentation theory of new rhetoric with research on heuristics and motivated reasoning, we develop a conceptual view of argumentation based on reasoning motivations that sheds new light on the morality of decision-making. Accordingly, we propose that reasoning in eristic argumentation is motivated by psychological (e.g., anxiety reduction) or material (e.g., vested interests) gains that do not depend on resolving the problem in question truthfully. Contrary to heuristic argumentation, in which disputants genuinely argue to reach a practically rational solution, eristic argumentation aims to defeat the counterparty rather than seeking a reasonable solution. Eristic argumentation is susceptible to arbitrariness and power abuses; therefore, it is inappropriate for making moral judgments with the exception of judgments concerning moral taboos, which are closed to argumentation by their nature. Eristic argumentation is also problematic for strategic and entrepreneurial decision-making because it impedes the search for the right heuristic under uncertainty as an ecologically rational choice. However, our theoretical view emphasizes that under extreme uncertainty, where heuristic solutions are as fallible as any guesses, pretense reasoning by eristic argumentation may be instrumental for its adaptive benefits. Expanding the concept of eristic argumentation based on reasoning motivations opens a new path for studying the psychology of reasoning in connection to morality and decision-making under uncertainty. We discuss the implications of our theoretical view to relevant research streams, including ethical, strategic and entrepreneurial decision-making.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Many eminent philosophers (Descartes 1998/1637; Hume 2006/1740; Leibniz 1978/1875) conceive of values as completely outside the realm of rationality because they recognize formal rationality as the sole form of rationality. Weber (1978) refers to formal rationality as instrumental rationality and contrasts it with substantive rationality, which involves values in decision-making. For Weber (1978), substantive rationality is irrational from the point of view of instrumental rationality (Brubaker 2006). Overall, such conceptualizations of rationality presume that value choices are set in an arbitrarily irrational way. By contrast, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) propose that value choices can be determined through practical rationality—a different form of rationality.

  2. When denouncing positivism, we adopt the epistemological perspective of Perelman and Olbrecht’s (1969) argumentation theory. However, we also see Gigerenzer and his colleagues as difficult to categorize as typical positivists. Gigerenzer’s fast-and-frugal heuristics approach and his emphasis on ecological rationality challenged the norms of rationality embedded in rational choice theory as well as in behavioral economics (Gigerenzer 2018). By relying on the concept of ecological rationality, Gigerenzer (2008, 2011) essentially rejected the rationality norms of rational choice theory, which confines being rational to a simple utility-maximization behavior performed by actors who follow tenets of logic and probability. Gigerenzer’s approach can be considered a challenge to a positivist conception of rationality embedded in rational choice theory.

  3. We assume that there is neither empirical support (statistical data) nor a viable truthful belief about such an association between being physically attractive and being a good entrepreneurial partner.

References

  • Aguilera, R. V., & Vadera, A. K. (2008). The dark side of authority: Antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes of organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 431–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D. (2010). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artinger, F., Petersen, M., Gigerenzer, G., & Weibler, J. (2015). Heuristics as adaptive decision strategies in management. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S33–S52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ateş, N. Y., Tarakci, M., Porck, J. P., van Knippenberg, D., & Groenen, P. J. F. (2020). The dark side of visionary leadership in strategy implementation: Strategic alignment, strategic consensus, and commitment. Journal of Management, 46(5), 637–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babri, M., Davidson, B., & Helin, S. (2019). An updated inquiry into the study of corporate codes of ethics: 2005–2016. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04192-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, C., & Calvard, T. S. (2019). Epistemic vices in organizations: Knowledge, truth, and unethical conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(1), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3897-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, L. J., Bashshur, M. R., & Fortin, M. (2017). Motivated cognition and fairness: Insights, integration, and creating a path forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(6), 867–889.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H., & Sezer, O. (2016). Bounded awareness: Implications for ethical decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136(9), 95–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behfar, K., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2018). Perspective—Discovery within validation logic: Deliberately surfacing, complementing, and substituting abductive reasoning in hypothetico-deductive inquiry. Organization Science, 29(2), 323–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellow, A. (2004). In praise of nepotism: A natural history. New York: Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia, A. K., & Levina, N. (2020). The diverse rationalities of entrepreneurship education: Epistemic stance perspective. Academy of Management Learning & Education. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2019.0201?journalCode=amle

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rational heuristics: The “simple rules” that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1437–1464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brubaker, R. (2006). The limits of rationality: An essay on the social and moral thought of Max Weber (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N. (1982). The irrationality of action and action rationality: decisions, ideologies and organizational actions. Journal of Management Studies, 19(1), 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bukowski, M., von Hecker, U., & Kossowska, M. (2013). Motivational determinants of reasoning about social relations: The role of need for cognitive closure. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(2), 150–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1994). Biases and heuristics in strategic decision making: Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations. In Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 1994, No. 1, pp 85–89). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.

  • Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2017). The interplay between intuition and rationality in strategic decision making: A paradox perspective. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 365–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardon, M. S., Gregoire, D. A., Stevens, C. E., & Patel, P. C. (2013). Measuring entrepreneurial passion: Conceptual foundations and scale validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(3), 373–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 511–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chater, N., Felin, T., Funder, D. C., Gigerenzer, G., Koenderink, J. J., Krueger, J. I., et al. (2018) Mind, rationality, and cognition: An interdisciplinary debate. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 25(2), 793–826.

  • Conrad, C., & Malphurs, R. (2008). Are we there yet ? Are we there yet? Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 123–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coughlan, R. (2005). Codes, values and justifications in the ethical decision-making process. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1–2), 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craft, J. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004–2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 221–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croce, A., Ughetto, E., & Cowling, M. (2019). Investment motivations and UK business angels’ appetite for risk taking: The moderating role of experience. British Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman, F. (2020). Rationalization is rational. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19001730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damisch, L., Stoberock, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2010). Keep your fingers crossed! How superstition improves performance. Psychological Science, 21(7), 1014–1020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. The Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Colle, S., & Werhane, P. H. (2008). Moral motivation across ethical theories: What can we learn for designing corporate ethics programs? Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 751–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dedeke, A. (2015). A cognitive-intuitionist model of moral judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 437–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, R. (1998). Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeTienne, K. B., Ellertson, C. F., Ingerson, M.-C., & Dudley, W. R. (2019). Moral development in business ethics: An examination and critique. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04351-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijksterhuis, A., Van Knippenberg, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Schaper, C. (1996). Motivated social cognition: Need for closure effects on memory and judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32(3), 254–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditto, P. H., Pizarro, D. A., & Tannenbaum, D. (2009). Motivated moral reasoning. In B. H. Ross, D. M. Bartels, C. W. Bauman, L. J. Skitka, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation—Advances in research and theory (Vol. 50, pp. 307–338). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunham, L. C. (2010). From rational to wise action: Recasting our theories of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4), 513–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egorov, M., Pircher Verdorfer, A., & Peus, C. (2019). Taming the emotional dog: Moral intuition and ethically-oriented leader development. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(3), 817–834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 737–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbanna, S. (2006). Strategic decision-making: Process perspectives. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faraji-Rad, A., & Pham, M. T. (2017). Uncertainty increases the reliance on affect in decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes. (2017, April 4). Eric Trump offers surprisingly candid thoughts on nepotism. Retrieved September 21, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/04/04/eric-trump-offers-surprisingly-candid-thoughts-on-nepotism-ivanka-jared-kushner-role-donald-white-house/#77e1845e2e55.

  • Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2016). Microfoundations in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13), E22–E34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotaki, M., Lioukas, S., & Voudouris, I. (2019). Ethos is destiny: Organizational values and compliance in corporate governance. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04126-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganzin, M., Islam, G., & Suddaby, R. (2020). Spirituality and entrepreneurship: The role of magical thinking in future-oriented sensemaking. Organization Studies, 41(1), 77–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M., & Dane, E. (2016). Affect, emotion, and decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 47–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 20–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2018). The bias bias in behavioral economics. Review of Behavioral Economics, 5(3–4), 303–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R., & Pachur, T. (2016). Heuristics: The foundations of adaptive behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenbaum, R., Bonner, J., Gray, T., & Mawritz, M. (2020). Moral emotions: A review and research agenda for management scholarship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(2), 95–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. R. (2002). Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3), 261–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guth, W. D., & Macmillan, I. C. (1986). Strategy implementation versus middle management self-interest. Strategic Management Journal, 7(4), 313–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1, Reason and the rationalization of society. London: Heinemann.

  • Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. London: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The Rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114(3), 704–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamerman, E. J., & Morewedge, C. K. (2015). Reliance on luck: Identifying which achievement goals elicit superstitious behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(3), 323–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartelius, E. J., & Browning, L. D. (2008). The application of rhetorical theory in managerial research: A literature review. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 13–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassin, R. R. (2013). Yes it can: On the functional abilities of the human unconscious. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 195–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayibor, S., & Wasieleski, D. M. (2009). Effects of the use of the availability heuristic on ethical decision-making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(S1), 151–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiekkataipale, M.-M., & Lämsä, A.-M. (2019). (A)moral agents in organisations? The significance of ethical organisation culture for middle managers’ exercise of moral agency in ethical problems. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(1), 147–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiekkataipale, M.-M., & Lämsä, A. M. (2017). What should a manager like me do in a situation like this? Strategies for handling ethical problems from the viewpoint of the logic of appropriateness. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(3), 457–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubner, S., Baum, M., & Frese, M. (2019). Contagion of entrepreneurial passion: Effects on employee outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719883995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huhtala, M., Fadjukoff, P., & Kroger, J. (2020). Managers as moral leaders: Moral identity processes in the context of work. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04500-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (2006). Moral philosophy (G. Sayre-McCord, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Company.

  • Independent. (2017, April 12). Donald Trump’s son Eric calls nepotism “a beautiful thing”. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-nepotism-criticism-eric-trump-family-a7679101.html. Accessed 22 September 2020

  • Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein, M. (2019). The moral entrepreneur: A new component of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 1135–1150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., Park, B. K., & Young, L. (2020). The psychology of motivated versus rational impression updating. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(2), 101–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopman, J., Scott, B. A., Matta, F. K., Conlon, D. E., & Dennerlein, T. (2019). Ethical leadership as a substitute for justice enactment: An information- processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(9), 1103–1116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing.” Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 861–876.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurdoglu, R. S. (2019a). The mirage of procedural justice and the primacy of interactional justice in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04166-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurdoglu, R. S. (2019b). An inquiry into pseudo-legitimations: A framework to investigate the clash of managerial legitimations and employees’ unfairness claims. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(1), 129–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latan, H., Jabbour, C. J. C., Lopes, A. B., & de Sousa Jabbour. . (2016). Ethical awareness, ethical judgement and whistleblowing: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(4), 755–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehnert, K., Park, Y., & Singh, N. (2015). Research note and review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: Boundary conditions and extensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(1), 195–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz, G. W. (1978). Die philosophischen Schriften (C. J. Gerhardt, Ed.). Hildeseim: Georg Elms.

  • Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 799–823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, C. W., Tiwari, A., & Tongb, L. (2017). Investment decisions under ambiguity: Evidence from mutual fund investor behavior. Management Science, 63(8), 2509–2528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieder, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2020). Resource-rational analysis: Understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1900061X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. F., Hsee, C. K., Weber, E. U., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. A., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2006). Overoptimism and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Management Science, 52(2), 173–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luan, S., Reb, J., & Gigerenzer, G. (2019). Ecological rationality: Fast-and-frugal heuristics for managerial decision making under uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitland, E., & Sammartino, A. (2015). Decision making and uncertainty: The role of heuristics and experience in assessing a politically hazardous environment. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1554–1578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malle, B. F. (2021). Moral judgments. Annual Review of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-072220-104358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maneli, M. (2010). Perelman’s new rhetoric as philosophy and methodology for the next century. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martela, F. (2015). Fallible inquiry with ethical ends-in-view: A pragmatist philosophy of science for organizational research. Organization Studies, 36(4), 537–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvie, A., Haynie, J. M., & Gustavsson, V. (2011). Unpacking the uncertainty construct: Implications for entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 273–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcmanus, J. (2019). Emotions and ethical decision making at work: Organizational norms, emotional dogs, and the rational tales they tell themselves and others. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04286-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C. B. (2006). Destructive dynamics of middle management intervention in postmerger processes. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(4), 397–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mises, L. von. (1988). Human action: A treatise on economics (The Scholar’s ed.). Auburn, ALA: Ludwig von Mises Institute.

  • Munter, D. (2013). Codes of ethics in the light of fairness and harm. Business Ethics: A European Review, 22(2), 174–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newark, D. (2018). Leadership and the logic of absurdity. Academy of Management Review, 43(2), 198–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noval, L. J., & Hernandez, M. (2019). The unwitting accomplice: How organizations enable motivated reasoning and self-serving behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(3), 699–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2020). New paradigms in the psychology of reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 71(1), 305–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packard, M. D., Clark, B. B., & Kleinc, P. G. (2017). Uncertainty types and transitions in the entrepreneurial process. Organization Science, 28(5), 840–856.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. (1963). The idea of justice and the problem of argument. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. (1979). The new rhetoric and the humanities: Essays on rhetoric and its applications. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. (1980). Justice, law, and argument: Essays on moral and legal reasoning. London: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric. London: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. (1984). Rhetoric and politics. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 17(3), 129–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (E-book ver.). London: University of Notre Dame Press.

  • Pham, M. T. (2007). Emotion and rationality: A critical review and interpretation of empirical evidence. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 155–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2009). Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 267–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulakos, J. (1995). Sophistical rhetoric in classical Greece. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provis, C. (2017). Intuition, analysis and reflection in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(1), 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risen, J. L. (2016). Believing what we do not believe: Acquiescence to superstitious beliefs and other powerful intuitions. Psychological Review, 123(2), 182–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riza, S. D., & Heller, D. (2015). Follow your heart or your head? A longitudinal study of the facilitating role of calling and ability in the pursuit of a challenging career. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 695–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltzstein, H. D., & Kasachkoff, T. (2004). Haidt’s moral intuitionist theory: A psychological and philosophical critique. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 273–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(4), 755–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafir, E., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2002). Rationality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 491–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sillince, J., & Mueller, F. (2007). Switching strategic perspective: The reframing of accounts of responsibility. Organization Studies, 28(2), 155–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M., & Shrader, R. C. (2012). Entrepreneurial actions and optimistic overconfidence: The role of motivated reasoning in new product introductions. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(3), 291–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M. S. (2000). Ethical and fair work behaviour: A normative-empirical dialogue concerning ethics and justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006299811213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobral, F., & Islam, G. (2013). Ethically questionable negotiating: The interactive effects of trust, competitiveness, and situation favorability on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 281–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1022–1040.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, J. R., & Pan, Y. (2010). Ethical judgments in business ethics research: Definition, and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(3), 405–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 545–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H. (2016). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. London: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd, R. M., Miskovic, V., Chikazoe, J., & Anderson, A. K. (2020). Emotional objectivity: Neural representations of emotions and their interaction with cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 25–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

  • Townsend, D. M., Hunt, R. A., McMullen, J. S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2018). Uncertainty, knowledge problems, and entrepreneurial action. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 659–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, E. W. K. (2004). Toward a scientific inquiry into superstitious business decision-making. Organization Studies, 25(6), 923–946.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, E. W. K. (2011). Superstition and decision-making: Contradiction or complement? Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 92–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., et al. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F. H., & Henkemans, A. F. S. (2017). Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Laar, J. A. (2010). Argumentative bluff in eristic discussion: An analysis and evaluation. Argumentation, 24(3), 383–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volz, K. G., & Hertwig, R. (2016). Emotions and decisions: Beyond conceptual vagueness and the rationality muddle. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 101–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(1), 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosgerau, J. (2010). How prevalent is wishful thinking? Misattribution of arousal causes optimism and pessimism in subjective probabilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(1), 32–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vuori, N., & Vuori, T. (2014). Comment on “heuristics in the strategy context” by Bingham and Eisenhardt (2011). Strategic Management Journal, 35(11), 1689–1697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walco, D. K., & Risen, J. L. (2017). The empirical case for acquiescing to intuition. Psychological Science, 28(12), 1807–1820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1998a). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1998b). Eristic dialogue. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument account (pp. 178–197). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1999). One-sided arguments: A dialectical analysis of bias. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, G. W., Freeman, R. E., & Parmar, B. (2008). Connected moral agency in organizational ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 323–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., Reynolds, S. J., & Brown, M. E. (2014). Moral intuition: Connecting current knowledge to future organizational research and practice. Journal of Management, 40(1), 100–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westaby, J. D., Probst, T. M., & Lee, B. C. (2010). Leadership decision-making: A behavioral reasoning theory analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 481–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, T. (2012). Human resource management in a compartmentalized world: Whither moral agency? Journal of Business Ethics, 111(1), 85–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S. (2010). A System of argumentation forms in Aristotle. Argumentation, 24(1), 19–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfsdorf, D. (2008). Trials of reason: Plato and the crafting of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, A., Loi, R., & Ngo, H. Y. (2017). Ethical leadership behavior and employee justice perceptions: The mediating role of trust in organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3), 493–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan, Y., & Qi, S. (2020). I know what I need: Optimization of Bribery. Journal of Business Ethics, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04608-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeni, T. A., Buckley, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Griffith, J. A. (2016). Making “sense” of ethical decision making. Leadership Quarterly, 27(6), 838–855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, T., Gino, F., & Margolis, J. D. (2018). Does “could” lead to good? On the road to moral insight. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 857–895.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, F. (2020). The dynamics of motivated beliefs. American Economic Review, 110(2), 337–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, L. (2020). The consumers’ emotional dog learns to persuade its rational tail: Toward a social intuitionist framework of ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04420-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, L., Pellegrini, M. M., & Ciappei, C. (2017). What sparks ethical decision making? The interplay between moral intuition and moral reasoning: lessons from the scholastic doctrine. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(4), 681–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zolotoy, L., Seo, M.-G., & Veeraraghavan, M. (2020). Mood and ethical decision making: Positive affect and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04432-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business Administration, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey

    Rasim Serdar Kurdoglu

  2. Sabancı Business School, Sabancı University, İstanbul, Turkey

    Nüfer Yasin Ateş

Authors
  1. Rasim Serdar Kurdoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nüfer Yasin Ateş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rasim Serdar Kurdoglu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kurdoglu, R.S., Ateş, N.Y. Arguing to Defeat: Eristic Argumentation and Irrationality in Resolving Moral Concerns. J Bus Ethics 175, 519–535 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04659-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04659-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation