Teleologic argument

You recommend a course of action as a means to a goal the actor is already pursuing. The argument works because the goal is already wanted, so any action that serves it inherits that wanting: this is what you are trying to achieve, so this is what you should do. It can be attacked by showing that the action is not a good route to the goal, or that a better route exists.

Example

The University of Amsterdam should invest in AI research because it should foster innovation

Standardised form

The University of Amsterdam (a) should invest in AI research (X) because the University of Amsterdam (a) should foster innovation (Y).

Transformations applied: anaphora resolved — “it” replaced by “the University of Amsterdam”.

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 invest in AI research” is a statement of policy (P) and the premise “should foster innovation” is a statement of policy (P), so the argument substance is PP.

The keyword TELEOLOGIC MOTIVATION describes the relationship between predicates Y and X. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Fostering innovation (Y) is a TELEOLOGIC MOTIVATION for investing in AI research (X)”.

Not to be confused with

• Deontic argument — The premise expresses an obligation owed rather than an end pursued. DEONTIC MOTIVATION
• Pragmatic argument — Substance: the premise forecasts what the action will bring about. PF
• Argument from principle — Substance: the premise passes a moral verdict on the action. PV
• Argument from evaluation — Substance: the premise rates the activity as worth doing. PV

Source

Source not yet recorded.

Other examples

• “Cities (a) should ban smoking in public spaces (X) because cities (a) should protect citizens’ health (Y).” — source not yet recorded.

Notes

This argument type is similar to the deontic argument, but here the premise expresses an end (telos) rather than an obligation (deon). On taking the actor rather than the activity as the subject, see the note on the deontic argument.