Abstract
There is a tension between democracy, which requires acknowledgment of human fallibility, and moral principle, which individuals normally hold with certainty. Partly for this reason, it is often difficult and uncomfortable to argue about moral values in a democratic public sphere. After exploring this tension, the essay identifies levels, strategies, and tactics for arguments about values, with illustrations of each. Although individuals may hold moral principles with certainty, public discourse about values necessarily must be inconclusive.
This essay originally was presented at a 2009 conference on Bioethics, Public Moral Argument, and Social Responsibility held at Wake Forest University. It is reprinted here from the volume, Bioethics, Public Moral Argument, and Social Responsibility (Nancy M.P. King and Michael J. Hyde, Ed.), pp. 3–13 (New York: Routledge, 2012).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Booth, W.C. 1974. Modern dogma and the rhetoric of assent. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Douglas, S.A. 1961. Letter to twenty-five Chicago clergymen. In The letters of Stephen A. Douglas, ed. R.L. Johannsen, 300–322. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. (Originally written in 1854.)
Ervin, S. 1980. The whole truth: The Watergate controversy. New York: Random House.
Lincoln, A. 1953a. “A house divided”: Speech at Springfield, Illinois. In The collected works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 2, ed. R.L. Basler, 461–469. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. (Originally delivered in 1858.)
Lincoln, A. 1953b. Message to Congress in special session. In The collected works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 4, ed. R.L. Basler, 421–441. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. (Originally delivered in 1861.)
Perelman, Ch., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Originally published in French in 1958.)
Schulman, A. 2008. Bioethics and the question of human dignity. In Human dignity and bioethics: Essays commissioned by the President’s council on bioethics, 3–18. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Thorson, T.L. 1962. The logic of democracy. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Walton, D. 1998. Ad hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Zarefsky, D. 1987. Fulbright and Ervin: Southern Senators with national appeal. In A new diversity in contemporary southern rhetoric, ed. C.M. Logue and H. Dorgan, 114–165. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Zarefsky, D. 1990. Lincoln, Douglas, and slavery: In the crucible of public debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zarefsky, D. 2003. Felicity conditions for the circumstantial ad hominem: The case of Bush v. Gore. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 297–308. Dordrecht: Kluwer. (Reprinted in this volume, Chap. 12.)
Zarefsky, D. 2008. Two faces of democratic rhetoric. In Rhetoric and democracy: Pedagogical and political practices, ed. T.F. McDorman and D.M. Timmerman, 115–137. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zarefsky, D. (2014). Arguing About Values: The Problem of Public Moral Argument. In: Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation. Argumentation Library, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-05484-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05485-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)