A Case for a Reasons-Based Theory of Argument

Hubert Marraud

doi:10.1007/s10503-025-09658-z

Argumentation Dec 2025 Open Access

A Case for a Reasons-Based Theory of Argument

Hubert Marraud Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Abstract

Abstract A very basic intuition is that argumentation is about giving reasons. This is recognized, for example, when it is stated that the object of study of argumentation theory is argumentative practices that consist, in whole or in part, but, at least, to a significant extent, of asking for, giving, and examining reasons. But this consensus does not translate into theory. In fact, reasons occupy a modest place in argumentation theory. Logical properties can be understood in terms of reasons or in terms of inferences, and in this sense, we can contrast reasons-based theories of argument with inference-based theories of argument. I will first show that the distinction between reasons-based and inference-based theories of argument is robust, and that there is a real difference between them. I will then argue that, as far as argumentation is concerned, a logical approach based on reasons is preferable to one based on inferences.

Journal: Argumentation
Published: 2025-12-01
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09658-z
CompPile
Open Access: OA PDF Hybrid
Topics: argument
Export: BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (24) · 1 in this index

M Álvarez (2010)

Kinds of reasons. An essay in the philosophy of action

↗
R Bader (2016)

Weighing reasons

↗
JA Blair (2012)

Groundwork in the theory of argumentation. Selected paper of J. Anthony Blair

↗
P Boghossian (2014)

Boghossian, P. 2014. What is inference? Philosophical Studies 169:1–18.

Philosophical Studies ↗
J Dancy (2004)

Ethics without principles

↗

Show all 24 →

J Dancy (2007)

Dancy, J. 2007. Defending the right. Journal of Moral Philosophy 4(1):85–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/17404681…

Journal of Moral Philosophy ↗
Dewey, J. 1924. Logical Method and Law, 10 Cornell Law Review 17 (1924). Available at: http://scholarship.law…
I Fairclough (2018)

Argumentation and inference
Maurice Finocchiaro (2013)

Metaargumentation. An approach to logic and argumentation theory
Govier, T. 2010. A Practical Study of Argument. 7th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Harman, G. 1986. Change in View: Principles of Reasoning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
JF Horty (2012)

Reasons as defaults

↗
RH Johnson (2000)

Manifest rationality

↗
S Kagan (1989)

The limits of morality
Leal, F. and H. Marraud 2022. How Philosophers Argue. An Adversarial Collaboration on the Russell-Copleston D…

↗
Marraud, H. 2024a. Reasonism and Inferentism in the Theory of Argument. In The Cognitive Dimension of Social …
Marraud, H. 2024b. Classifying argument models. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference of the International S…
H Mercier (2011)

Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for argumentative theory. Behavioral and B…

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ↗
Henkemans (2000)

State-of-the-Art: The Structure of Argumentation

Argumentation
Toulmin, S. E. 2003. The Uses of Argument, updated edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. New York: …
Toulmin, S. E., R. Rieke, and A. Janik. 1984. An introduction to Reasoning, 2nd edition. New York: McMillan.
JA Van Laar (2014)

Van Laar, J. A. 2014. Arguments that take counterconsiderations into account. Informal Logic 34(3):240–272.

Informal Logic ↗
C Wellman (1971)

Challenge and response: Justification in ethics
J Wenzel (2006)

Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede

CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network → Build reading path →

A Case for a Reasons-Based Theory of Argument

Abstract

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

References (24) · 1 in this index

Related Articles