Deontic argument

You derive one obligation from another. The argument works on the rule that whoever is bound to an end is bound to the means: once it is accepted that someone must reach a certain goal, they are held to the step that reaches it. It can be attacked by denying the larger obligation, or by showing that it can be met without taking this particular step.

Example

We should decarbonize the power sector because we should reach net-zero emissions by 2050

Standardised form

We (a) should decarbonize the power sector (X) because we (a) should reach net-zero emissions by 2050 (Y).

Transformations applied: none — the example is already in canonical form.

Classification

The subject is the same in both statements and the predicates differ, so the argument form is alpha (a is X because a is Y).

The conclusion “should decarbonize the power sector” is a statement of policy (P) and the premise “should reach net-zero emissions by 2050” is a statement of policy (P), so the argument substance is PP.

The keyword DEONTIC MOTIVATION describes the relationship between predicates Y and X. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Having to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 (Y) is a DEONTIC MOTIVATION for having to decarbonize the power sector (X)”.

Not to be confused with

• Teleologic argument — The premise names an end the actor pursues rather than an obligation owed. TELEOLOGIC MOTIVATION
• Pragmatic argument — Substance: the premise predicts a consequence. PF
• Argument from principle — Substance: the premise passes a moral verdict on the activity. PV
• Argument from evaluation — Substance: the premise rates the activity as worth doing. PV

Source

Source not yet recorded.

Notes

This argument type is similar to the teleologic argument, but here the premise expresses an obligation (deon) rather than an end (telos). Unlike the pragmatic argument and the argument from principle, it takes the actor as the subject rather than the action.