Abstract

AbstractDespite increasing interest in studying arguments from deontic authority of the general form “(1) $$\delta$$ δ is a deontic authority in institution $$\varOmega$$ Ω ; (2) according to $$\delta$$ δ , I should do $$\alpha$$ α , C: therefore, (3) I should do $$\alpha$$ α ”, the state of the art models are not capable of grasping their complexity. The existing sets of critical questions assigned to this argumentation scheme seem to conflate two problems: whether a person is subject to an authority of an institution in the first place and whether the command issued within the context of a particular institution is eventually binding. For this reason, we introduce (1) a set of Basic Critical Questions to scrutinize the former issue, and (2) a set of more detailed questions related to specific features, also referred to as “parameters”, of institutional environments (Intra-Institutional Critical Questions). We identify major elements of institutional environments in which authoritative utterances are made and the crucial parameters of arguments from deontic authority. The selected evidence from the decisions of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court helps us show how these parameters may be used to reconstruct subtypes of this argument scheme, with their associated sets of critical questions. In specific institutional contexts, such detailed schemes are capable of grasping the complexity of appeals to deontic authority and thus should be used rather than general schemes. The reconstruction of argumentation schemes with critical questions shows how particular arguments may successfully be attacked.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2024-06-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-023-09623-8
CompPile
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (30) · 7 in this index

  1. Araszkiewicz, M., Koszowy, M. 2016. Deontic authority in legal argumentation: A case study. In Argumentation …
  2. Was ist Autorität? Einführung in die Logik der Autorität
  3. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications
  4. Dickson, J. 2010. Interpretation and coherence in legal reasoning. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy…
  5. Foundations and building blocks of law
Show all 30 →
  1. Hitchcock, D., and J. Wagemans. 2011. The pragma-dialectical account of argument schemes. In E.T. Feteris, B.…
  2. Argumentation
  3. Koszowy, M., and D. Walton. 2017. Profiles of dialogue for repairing faults in arguments from expert opinion.…
    Logic and Logical Philosophy  
  4. Koszowy, M., and D. Walton. 2019. Epistemic and deontic authority in the argumentum Ad Verecundiam. Pragmatic…
    Pragmatics and Society  
  5. Lewiński, M. 2022. Challenging authority with argumentation: The pragmatics of arguments from and to authorit…
    Languages  
  6. The psychology of computer vision
    A Framework for Representing Knowledge
  7. Parsons, S., K. Atkinson, Z. Li, P. McBurney, E. Sklar, M. Singh, K. Haigh, K. Levitt, and J. Rowe. 2014. Arg…
    Argument & Computation  
  8. Poudyal, P., Savelka, J., Ieven, A., Moens, M., Goncalves, T., Quaresma, P. 2020. ECHR: Legal corpus for argu…
  9. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality
  10. Argumentation
  11. Modality in Argumentation
  12. Savelka, J., Ashley, K. 2016. ECHR: Legal corpus for argument mining. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on A…
  13. Argumentation
  14. Argumentation
  15. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority
  16. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning
  17. Walton, D., and F. Macagno. 2015. A classification system for argumentation schemes. Argument & Computation 6…
    Argument & Computation  
  18. Argumentation Schemes
  19. Statutory Interpretation: Pragmatics and Argumentation
  20. The Judicial Application of Law
  21. Argumentation
  22. Argumentation
  23. Zenker, F., and Yu. S. 2020. A new typology for arguments from authority. Proceedings of the Ontario Society …
    Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference
  24. Argumentation
  25. Zenker, F., Debowska-Kozłowska, K., Godden, D., Selinger, M., Wells, S. 2020. Five approaches to argument str…