Pragmatic argument

You argue for or against a course of action by predicting what it will lead to. The argument works because a forecast of gain or harm gives a reason to act: if the action brings the good result it should be done, and if it brings the bad one it should not. It can be attacked by disputing the forecast, or by insisting that the action should be judged on principle regardless of its results.

Example

The government should not introduce a basic income because that will lead to a drop in income for most people

Standardised form

Introducing a basic income (a) should not be done (X) because introducing a basic income (a) will lead to a drop in income for most people (Y).

Transformations applied: subject changed to the activity — “the government” replaced by “introducing a basic income”; anaphora resolved — “that” replaced by the same phrase.

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 not be done” is a statement of policy (P) and the premise “will lead to a drop in income for most people” is a statement of fact (F), so the argument substance is PF.

The keyword PRAGMATIC MOTIVATION describes the relationship between predicates Y and X. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Leading to a drop in income for most people (Y) is a PRAGMATIC MOTIVATION for not introducing a basic income (X)”.

Not to be confused with

• Argument from principle — Substance: the premise passes a moral verdict on the measure instead of predicting its results. PV
• Argument from evaluation — Substance: the premise rates the activity rather than forecasting what it will bring. PV
• Deontic argument — Substance: the premise states another obligation. PP
• Teleologic argument — Substance: the premise states an end the actor pursues. PP

Source

Source not yet recorded.

Other examples

• “Children (a) should sleep without a light on (X), because that (a) prevents them from ruining their eyesight (Y).” — presented by Martijn Demollin at the VIOT 2018 Conference, based on Quinn et al. (1999), Nature 399, 113–114; BBC News, Health, 12 May 1999.

Notes

In reconstructing arguments with a statement of policy (P) in the conclusion, it is often helpful to take the activity — in this case, “introducing a basic income” — as the subject.