Résumés
Abstract
This paper discusses virtuous audiences in argumentation, asking “what does the virtuous audience look like”, and “how could they contribute to a fully satisfying argument”? We first propose to conceive the role of audience in a moderate way, as someone who is addressed by the arguer. Then, we argue that an audience would participate in and contribute to an argument by listening and responding to the arguer, and then by improving themselves. On that basis, we develop a conception of the virtuous audience and make a list of virtues that the virtuous audience needs to cultivate. Finally, we take the list as a framework for analyzing different ways in which the audience can behave badly when participating in argumentation.
Keywords:
- virtue argumentation theory,
- the virtuous audience,
- listening,
- virtue
Résumé
Cet article examine la notion d'auditoire vertueux dans le cadre de l'argumentation, en cherchant à savoir à quoi ressemble un tel auditoire et comment il peut contribuer à une argumentation pleinement satisfaisante. Nous proposons d'abord de concevoir le rôle de l'auditoire de manière modérée, comme celui auquel s'adresse l'argumentateur. Ensuite, nous soutenons que l'auditoire participe à l'argumentation et y contribue en écoutant et en répondant à l'argumentateur, puis en s'améliorant lui-même. Sur cette base, nous élaborons une conception de l'auditoire vertueux et dressons la liste des vertus que celui-ci doit cultiver. Enfin, nous utilisons cette liste comme cadre d'analyse pour examiner les différentes manières dont l'auditoire peut se comporter mal lorsqu’il participe à une argumentation.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Aberdein, A. (2010). Virtue in Argument. Argumentation, 24, 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9160-0
- Al Tamimi, K. (2017). A narrative account of argumentation. [Doc-toral dissertation, York University]. https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/items/cf17b4f1-9132-4aab-ab29-aa617dcafb3b
- Beatty, J. (1999). Good listening. Educational Theory, 49(3), 281-298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00281.x
- Blair, J. A. (2011). The moral normativity of argumentation. Cogency, 3(1), 13-32.
- Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1, 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00127118
- Cohen, D. (2005). Arguments that backfire. The Uses of Argument, (D. Hitchcock & D. Farr, Eds.).
- Cohen, D. H. (2007). Virtue epistemology and argumentation theory. Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground (H. V. Hansen, Ed.).
- Cohen, D. (2013). Virtue, in context. Informal Logic 33(4), 471-485. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v33i4.4077
- Davis, J., & Godden, D. (2021). Adversarial listening in argumenta-tion. Topoi, 40(5), 925-937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-020-09730-1
- Devine, T. G. (1978). Listening: What do we know after fifty years of research and theorizing? Journal of Reading, 21(4), 296-304.
- Drehe, I. (2017). The virtuous citizen: Regimes and audiences. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai-Philosophia, 62(2), 59-76.
- van Eemeren, F. H. (2015). Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Ar-gumentative Discourse (Argumentation library series, vol. 27), Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5
- van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
- Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
- Govier, T. (2010). A practical study of argument. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
- Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606174
- Lundsteen, S. W. (1979). Listening: Its impact at all levels on reading and the other language arts. National Council of Teachers of English.
- MacIntyre, A. C. (1999). Dependent rational animals: Why human beings need the virtues. Open Court Publishing.
- Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric. University of Notre Dame Press.
- Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
- Piñeiro, J., & Simpson, J. (2020). Eventful conversations and the positive virtues of a listener. Acta Analytica, 35, 373-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-020-00429-x
- Rice, S. (2011). Toward an Aristotelian conception of good listening. Educational Theory, 61(2), 141-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2011.00396.x
- Rice, S., & Burbules, N. C. (2010). Listening: a virtue account. Teachers College Record, 112(11), 2728-2742. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811011201106
- Stevens, K. (2016). The virtuous arguers: One person, four roles. Topoi, 35(2), 375-383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-015-9309-4
- Tindale, C. W. (2015). The philosophy of argument and audience reception. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316181645

