Good and ought in argumentation: COVID-19 as a case study

The present chapter concerns arguments whose conclusions take the form of a prescription such as you ought to do such-and-such, which have driven much public discussion and policy since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aim to tackle a hitherto under-explored characteristic of many such nor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Soria-Ruiz, Andrés, Maldonado, Mora, Stojanovic, Isidora, 1973-
Tipo de recurso: capítulo de libro
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2022
País:España
Institución:Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Repositorio:Repositorio Digital de la UPF
OAI Identifier:oai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/57581
Acceso en línea:http://hdl.handle.net/10230/57581
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91017-4_3
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Evaluative adjectives
Deontic modals
Pragmatics
Value judgment
Normative judgment
id ES_3d83a2be24ca9e16be459a28cc75d181
oai_identifier_str oai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/57581
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Good and ought in argumentation: COVID-19 as a case studySoria-Ruiz, AndrésMaldonado, MoraStojanovic, Isidora, 1973-Evaluative adjectivesDeontic modalsPragmaticsValue judgmentNormative judgmentThe present chapter concerns arguments whose conclusions take the form of a prescription such as you ought to do such-and-such, which have driven much public discussion and policy since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aim to tackle a hitherto under-explored characteristic of many such normative arguments, namely, the relationship between evaluative and deontic propositions, depending on whether they occur as premises or conclusions in such arguments. In order to investigate how willing people are to argue from what is good to what one ought to do, and the other way round, we conducted an Inferential Judgment Experiment. Participants were presented with arguments involving deontic and evaluative propositions, and had to judge whether they could infer conclusion from premise. The stimuli that we used are tightly related to the argumentation surrounding the pandemic, regarding the measures of preventing the spread of COVID-19. The results of the study show that there is a robust inferential connection between evaluatives and deontics, but at the same time, a significant asymmetry as well. We explore several theoretical approaches to the relationship between the deontic and the evaluative realm, and test their predictions against the results of our study.SpringerNature202320232022info:eu-repo/semantics/bookPartinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10230/57581http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91017-4_3reponame:Repositorio Digital de la UPFinstname:Universitat Pompeu FabraInglésOswald S, Lewiński M, Greco S, Villata S, editors. The pandemic of argumentation. Cham: Springer; 2022. p. 43-64.© The Author(s) 2022. This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/575812026-06-12T07:21:37Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Good and ought in argumentation: COVID-19 as a case study
title Good and ought in argumentation: COVID-19 as a case study
spellingShingle Good and ought in argumentation: COVID-19 as a case study
Soria-Ruiz, Andrés
Evaluative adjectives
Deontic modals
Pragmatics
Value judgment
Normative judgment
title_short Good and ought in argumentation: COVID-19 as a case study
title_full Good and ought in argumentation: COVID-19 as a case study
title_fullStr Good and ought in argumentation: COVID-19 as a case study
title_full_unstemmed Good and ought in argumentation: COVID-19 as a case study
title_sort Good and ought in argumentation: COVID-19 as a case study
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Soria-Ruiz, Andrés
Maldonado, Mora
Stojanovic, Isidora, 1973-
author Soria-Ruiz, Andrés
author_facet Soria-Ruiz, Andrés
Maldonado, Mora
Stojanovic, Isidora, 1973-
author_role author
author2 Maldonado, Mora
Stojanovic, Isidora, 1973-
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Evaluative adjectives
Deontic modals
Pragmatics
Value judgment
Normative judgment
topic Evaluative adjectives
Deontic modals
Pragmatics
Value judgment
Normative judgment
description The present chapter concerns arguments whose conclusions take the form of a prescription such as you ought to do such-and-such, which have driven much public discussion and policy since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aim to tackle a hitherto under-explored characteristic of many such normative arguments, namely, the relationship between evaluative and deontic propositions, depending on whether they occur as premises or conclusions in such arguments. In order to investigate how willing people are to argue from what is good to what one ought to do, and the other way round, we conducted an Inferential Judgment Experiment. Participants were presented with arguments involving deontic and evaluative propositions, and had to judge whether they could infer conclusion from premise. The stimuli that we used are tightly related to the argumentation surrounding the pandemic, regarding the measures of preventing the spread of COVID-19. The results of the study show that there is a robust inferential connection between evaluatives and deontics, but at the same time, a significant asymmetry as well. We explore several theoretical approaches to the relationship between the deontic and the evaluative realm, and test their predictions against the results of our study.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022
2023
2023
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/bookPart
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format bookPart
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10230/57581
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91017-4_3
url http://hdl.handle.net/10230/57581
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91017-4_3
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Oswald S, Lewiński M, Greco S, Villata S, editors. The pandemic of argumentation. Cham: Springer; 2022. p. 43-64.
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv SpringerNature
publisher.none.fl_str_mv SpringerNature
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositorio Digital de la UPF
instname:Universitat Pompeu Fabra
instname_str Universitat Pompeu Fabra
reponame_str Repositorio Digital de la UPF
collection Repositorio Digital de la UPF
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869406451564281856
score 15,198674

Similares en LA Referencia