Gadflies, midwives, and argumentation

Abstract

This thesis focuses on defending the claim that contemporary philosophy deals inadequately with issues of public concern. Beginning with an Aristotelian distinction between dialectical and rhetorical argument, I argue that philosophers have come to view the former as the only acceptable approach while unduly condemning the latter. I contend that this is a mistake, and that stereotypically deceptive rhetoric is not representative of all rhetorical argumentation. I argue further that dialectical argument succumbs to an effectiveness problem concerning audience uptake and shows great disrespect for the lived experience of audience members. I show this through analysis of two paradigm arguments in moral philosophy: Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion” and Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Finally, I argue that philosophers dealing with issues of public concern ought to empathize with audiences to construct arguments which better address the reasons that real people take such issues to be important.