The Value of Virtue Argumentation Theory in Evaluating Propositional Arguments

Abstract

As Gascón (2015) notes, the capacity to evaluate arguments—understood in the abstract, propositional sense—has been “the first matter of concern” in virtue argumentation theory. Recent exchanges, including Aberdein’s (2023) response to Siegel (2023), show the debate continues. This paper offers a more comprehensive review of the debate. We contend that existing responses often sidestep the criticisms by revising the notion of a good argument. Retaining a focus on propositional-level evaluation, we instead defend the value of virtue argumentation theory through a cooperative approach: virtue-based considerations can aid informal logical evaluation when the latter faces practical constraints.