I TAKE THIS PERSON

Let me make an argument.

Dicta:

          Since the state of homosexuality is biologically determined

          Since there exists no credible evidence that the raising of children is negatively impacted by whether their parents are gay/lesbian or straight

          Since the gay/lesbian community has overwhelmingly indicated that it defines its individual happiness is enhanced by being able to participate in the institution of marriage and enjoy all of its related rights

          Since existing state laws in several states interfere with gays and lesbians legally getting married and engaging in marital related activities – such as adopting children

          Since the US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and includes protection when any discriminatory practices are based on beliefs that deny the nature of those discriminated against (e. g., laws that discriminated against blacks’ civil rights because they were black)

Conclusion:

          Therefore, state laws that prohibit gay and lesbian marriages are unconstitutional and, by decree of the Supreme Court, shall be void as enforceable law

Warrant:

          Because the Supreme Court is the last arbiter as to whether federal or state law is constitutional or not[1]

Backing:

          As established by several precedents such as Marbury vs. Madison and Ware vs. Hylton.

          As established by the fact that federal justices of the United States are sworn, in their official capacity, to uphold the U. S. Constitution as prescribed in Article VI.

I make this argument because I hear from the opponents of the current decision by the Supreme Court to strike down state laws against marriage equality as a usurpation of state prerogative to determine whether these laws should be changed or the prerogative of the federal government through the actions of Congress and/or the President.  I would dare say that this latter course – a federal legislative approach – if taken, would have been criticized because the Constitution does not delegate the necessary power(s) to the central government to legislate the laws governing marriages – unless someone could define marriage as an interstate commerce activity.  Be that as it may, I just saw this opportunity as a legitimate way to provide a current example of how Stephen Toulmin’s[2] argument model can be used.  I cited the Toulmin model in the last posting and a previous one.  Civics teachers, I have been saying, can use this model and some ideas about rhetoric to review presidential election debates.  While I invite any criticism of the soundness of my argument, here is an example of the Toulmin model being used on a constitutional question.

---

[1] I could add another warrant:  civil tranquility is enhanced by respecting the individual rights of citizens and cite, as backing, the cases in which disrespect has led to civil disruption.

[2]  Toulmin, Stephen.  (1969).  The uses of argument.  London:  Cambridge University Press.

PROCESS OF ARGUMENT DEVELOPMENT

Have you heard any of the speeches that presidential hopefuls used to announce their individual campaigns for the White House?  I found Donald Trump’s entertaining; I found Hillary Clinton’s and Jeb Bush’s thoughtful.  In every case, they were exercises in rhetoric.  As I pointed out in a recent posting, they were primarily efforts to convince listeners and enlist supporters.  They were not primarily meant to share truth.  Oh, they might be based on truth claims – they might not be – but truth sharing is not their primary purpose.  They were attempts at exhortation and/or dissuasion as is the case in political debate.  I base these observations on the notes on rhetoric by Richard A. Lanham.[1]  In this posting, I want to ask another question of an argument:  what is the underlying process upon which the argument is based?

The process revolves around two sub-concerns:  one, the argument’s main support and, two, its reliance on the particular mental operation it uses to arrive at its conclusion(s).  In this posting, I am first looking at the use of supports.  Below, I address mental operations. 

A teacher can ask civics students to determine what support a politician uses to convince his/her audience of the conclusion he/she is proposing.  Supports come in two classifications:  real and synthetic. 

Real support refers to evidence such as eyewitness accounts, documents, scientific reports or analysis, and laws.  They are factually based claims about reality.  These supports can be linked to Stephen Toulmin’s[2] dictum statements in his model for reasoned argument.  For example, in the conclusion that Paolo is Catholic, a support might be the fact that Paolo is Italian.  In itself, it does not prove the conclusion, but when added to other testimony, it can support the conclusion. 

On the other hand, there is synthetic support.  By using the term synthetic, I do not want to say the support is necessarily untrue or unreal.  It is a statement of reality not logically supportive of the conclusion or it does not sufficiently prove the conclusion.  In our Paolo example, if I say that he is Catholic because I say so and I am of good reputation or good character, then this argument is based on a synthetic support. 

Argument based on the good name of its advocate is what the Greeks called “ethos.”  There is also “pathos” which is support emanating from being seduced by a pleasant mood or positive feelings.  I am encouraged to believe Paolo is Catholic because I am Catholic and I like Paolo and I would like to believe his afterlife is more secure if he is Catholic.  A use of good feeling can be within the content of the argument to increase the likelihood of its acceptance. 

Then there is the argument that sounds like it is based on a logical proof but does not meet the requirements of a logical argument:  I know Paolo is Catholic because I saw him attend a Catholic mass.  This is a synthetic support known as logos; that is, while the proof here is based on a real support statement – Paolo attended a mass – it is not enough to make the logical conclusion that he is Catholic and therefore, the overall support is synthetic and deemed illogical.  Any time an argument strives to be accepted by sounding logical but falling short, the rhetorical device of logos is being used. 

Again, a rhetorical device does not make the conclusion false, but if the device is synthetic, it is illogical or artificial argumentation.  Yet while illogical, the use of ethos, pathos, and logos are all used to convince the listener of the conclusion and not to necessarily share a truthful argument. 

To emphasize, the use of rhetoric does not necessarily mean the conclusion is invalid; it simply means the use of it is aimed at logically or illogically securing support.  At times, the conclusion can be valid; at times, it can be invalid, but whether it is or isn’t is not its author’s main concern.

The second concern is over the mental operations the argument demands in order to follow its “proof.”  Here we are on more familiar ground.  There are two mental operations:  inductive and deductive reasoning. 

I will refer you again to Toulmin’s model which I believe in effect combines both operations.  By relying on dictum statements, one’s main concern in inductive reasoning is whether there are enough dictum statements to account for all the incidents relevant to the conclusion or if the support for the conclusion is based on a partial number of incidents.  This is an inductive reasoning issue and is associated with pathos described above.  Maria is Italian and Catholic; Carlo is Italian and Catholic; are those enough cases to logically prove the case that Paolo is Catholic?  Obviously not, but that is the concern when thinking inductively.

In terms of deduction, the concern is whether the warrant statement – the claim that establishes the relevance of the dictum statements to the conclusion – is conclusive or only probable in its assertion.  Careful; I am referring here to the warrant statement, not dictum statements or conclusions.  The claim, for example, that all Italians are Catholic is a generalization – linking the fact that Paolo is Italian with the conclusion he is Catholic.  As stated, the assertion – the warrant statement – is conclusive (but not true).  Offering an alternative warrant claim, the overwhelming number of Italians are Catholic is a qualified generalization which makes the conclusion probable – Paolo is probably Catholic – and true.  These are the determinations one looks for when analyzing inductive reasoning.

For each of these elements, at least one analyzing question is suggested and teachers can devise them so that students can analyze the rhetorical quality of presidential candidates’ speeches and other statements and that of their campaigns.  They can also be used for any political argumentation.  For example, we hear today that the Confederate flag is a symbol of the tradition and heritage of the South and not a symbol of hatred or of the belief that whites are superior to blacks.  My question is what dictum statements can such an argument use to support this conclusion?  The press is reporting many in the South believe in this conclusion, but I haven’t heard any dictum statements to back it up.  I have heard of documentary evidence that it does represent, to the extent it represents the Confederate States of America, the belief that whites are superior to blacks.  One is constantly faced with argumentation of all kinds.  Political argumentation makes up much of what is reported on the news.  Hopefully, these ideas on rhetoric will help our students study these rhetorical arguments and form judgments as to their viability and veracity.

---

[1] Lanham, R. A.  (1969).  A handlist of rhetorical terms:  A guide for students of English literature.  Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press.

[2] Toulmin, Stephen.  (1969).  The uses of argument.  London:  Cambridge University Press.  See posting for May 5, 2015, The Structure of An Argument or Two.