An Agentive Response to the Incompleteness Problem for the Virtue Argumentation Theory

Abstract

This paper outlines an agent-centered theory of
argumentation. Our working hypothesis is that the aim of
argumentation depends upon the agenda agents are disposed
to close or advance. The novelty of this idea is that our theory,
unlike the main accounts of argumentation, does not establish
a fixed function that agents have to achieve when arguing.
Instead, we believe that the aims of argumentation depend
upon the purposes agents are disposed to achieve (agendas).

Full text

Argumentation and Reasoned Action
Proceedings of the 1st European
Conference on Argumentation,
Lisbon 2015
Volume II
Edited by
Dima Mohammed
and
Marcin Lewiński

© Individual author and College Publications 2016
All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-1-84890-212-1
College Publications
Scientific Director: Dov Gabbay
Managing Director: Jane Spurr
http://www.collegepublications.co.uk
Original cover design by Orchid Creative www.orchidcreative.co.uk
Printed by Lightning Source, Milton Keynes, UK
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission, in writing, from the
publisher.

!
!
!
D.!Mohammed!&!M.!Lewiński!(eds.)!(2016).!Argumentation!and!Reasoned!Action:!Proceedings!of!the!1st!
European!Conference!on!Argumentation,!Lisbon,!2015.!Vol.!II,!733-741.!London:!College!Publications.!
733!
45&
!
An!Agentive!Response!to!the!Incompleteness!Problem!
for!the!Virtue!Argumentation!Theory!
!
DOUGLAS!NIÑO!
Universidad!Jorge!Tadeo!Lozano,!Colombia!
edison.nino@utadeo.edu.co!
!
DANNY!MARRERO!
Universidad!Jorge!Tadeo!Lozano,!Colombia!
danny.marrero@cij.edu.co!
!
!
This! paper! outlines! an! agent-centered! theory! of!
argumentation.! Our! working! hypothesis! is! that! the! aim! of!
argumentation!depends!upon!the!agenda! agents! are! disposed!
to!close!or!advance.!The!novelty!of!this!idea!is!that!our!theory,!
unlike!the!main!accounts!of!argumentation,!does!not!establish!
a! fixed! function! that! agents! have! to! achieve! when! arguing.!
Instead,! we! believe! that! the! aims! of! argumentation! depend!
upon!the!purposes!agents!are!disposed!to!achieve!(agendas).!
!
KEYWORDS:! agenda,! agent,! agent-centered! theory! of!
argumentation,!function!of!argumentation!
!
!
1.!INTRODUCTION!
!
Virtue! argumentation! theorists! claim! to! adopt! an! agent-centered!
approach! to! argumentation.! From! our! perspective,! an! agent-centered!
approach! to! argumentation! should! provide! an! explanation! of! what! an!
agent! is! and! the! role! arguments! have! in! agents’! cognitive! economies.!
Therefore,!such!approach!should!provide!an!account!of!“what!agents!are!
like,!what! their!interests! are,!and!what!they!are!capable! of”!(Gabbay! &!
Woods,! 2009,! pp.! 70-71).! Virtue! argumentation! theorists! seem! not! to!
satisfy! this! requirement,! because! their! focus! is! the! virtues! an! arguer!
might! or! might! not! have,! but! not! the! arguer! as! such.! This! is! our!
argument:!
!

Douglas!Niño!and!Danny!Marrero!
!
!
734!
(1)! The! traditional! virtue! argumentation! approach! claims! it! is! an!
agent-centered!approach.!
(2)! The! traditional! agent-centered! approach! studies! the! virtues! an!
agent!has.!
(3)!The!virtue!argumentation!approach!is!a!virtue-centered!approach,!
and!not!an!agent-centered!approach.!
!
For! instance,! Andrew! Aberdain! claims:! “We! have! seen! that! a! virtue!
theoretic! approach! to! argument! must! focus! on! agents! rather! than!
actions.!This! entails!distinguishing! good!from! bad! arguers!rather! than!
good!from!bad!arguments!…!This!raises!the!question!of!what!the!virtues!
of! the! ideal! arguer! are! expected! to! track”! (2010,! pp.! 171-173).! This!
quote! confirms! the! allegedly! methodological! option! of! the! virtue!
argumentation!approach,!as!it!is!stated! by!proposition!(1).!Proposition!
(2)! shows! that! the! virtue! argumentation! approach! does! not! study!
agents,!but!their! virtues.!Therefore,!this! is!a!virtue-centered! approach,!
and!not!an!agent-centred!approach,!as!it!is!stated!in!proposition!(3).!
From! our! perspective,! the! focus! on! virtues! and! not! on! agents,!
leads! the! virtue! argumentation! approach! to! the! Incompleteness!
Problem! (IP).! First,! they! cannot! deal! with! conflicts! of! argumentative!
virtues! without! using! extra-virtue! theoretic! considerations.! Second,!
they!do!not!justify!why!it!is!good!to!be!a!virtuous!arguer!without!using!
utilitarian! considerations! (MacPherson,! 2013,! p.! 1).! The! aim! of! this!
paper! is! to! provide! an! agentive! response! to! IP.! First,! we! will! outline!
Daniel!H.!Cohen’s!virtue!argumentation!approach!as!it!was!presented!in!
“Virtue! Epistemology! and! Argumentation! Theory”! (2009).! Second,! we!
will!show!how!Cohen’s!virtue!argumentation!theory!is!vulnerable!to!IP,!
as! it! was! suggested! by! Brian! MacPherson! in! “The! Incompleteness!
Problem!for!a!Virtue-based!Theory!of!Argumentation”!(2013).!Third,!we!
will!propose!an!agentive!solution!for!IP.!Our!working!hypothesis!is!that!
a!theory!of!argumentation!clarifying!the!cognitive!agendas!of!the!agents!
arguing!not!only!provides!a!response!for!IP,!but!also!shows!the!virtues!
of!argumentation!in!agents’!cognitive!enterprises.!
!
2.!COHEN’S!VIRTUE!ARGUMENTATION!APPROACH!
!
Cohen’s!main! motivation!to! adopt! a! virtue! approach!to! argumentation!
takes! the! form! of! an! analogy:! As! the! virtue! approach! has! been!
theoretically!fruitful!for!ethics!and!epistemology,!it!could!be!fruitful!for!
argumentation!theory.!Let’s!explore!the!first!term!of!the!analogy.!On!one!
hand,! virtue! ethics! is! “better! situated! than! [its]! consequentialist! and!
deontological!counterparts!to! recognize,!accommodate,!and! appreciate!
ethical!but!non-moral!values!without!flattening!them!into!moral!values.”!

An!agentive!response!to!the!incompleteness!problem!
!
735!
!
On! the! other,! virtue! epistemology! is! “perfectly! situated! to! recognize,!
accommodate,! and! appreciate! cognitive!but! non-epistemic!values!
without! having! to! flatten! them! into! the! standard! epistemological!
categories”! (Cohen,! 2009,! p.! 2).! For! Cohen,! virtue! ethics! takes! into!
account!“important!goods”!that!alternative!theories!such!as!deontology!
and! consequentialism! do! not.! For! example,! virtue! ethics! is! able! to!
explain! why! family! and! friendship! are! ethically! good!but! not! morally!
obligatory:! family! and! friendship! are! goods! that! contribute! to! the!
enjoyment!of!life,!but!someone!lacking!family!or!friendship!networks!is!
not!morally!blameworthy.!Virtue!epistemology!seems!to!have!a!similar!
explanatory!power.!While!the!received!epistemological!view!exclusively!
focuses! on! the! attainment! of! propositional! knowledge,! virtue!
epistemology!recognizes!both!that!“[t]here!are!many!different!cognitive!
achievements! in! addition! to! knowledge! and! justified! belief”! and! that!
“[t]here! are! different! cognitive! abilities! leading! to! those! achievements!
that!are! not!reducible! to!propositional! knowledge”!(Cohen! 2009,!p.! 3).!
For!instance,!traditional!epistemologists!cannot!see!the!virtue!of!closed-
mindedness!and!the!vice!of!open-mindedness!because!they!do!not!seem!
to! contribute! to! the! justification! of! our! beliefs.! However,! virtue!
epistemology! would! claim! that! close-mindedness! is! virtuous! and! the!
opposite!is!vicious!in!cases!in!which!a!justified!belief!has!been!achieved,!
and!it!is! counter-productive!to!re-open! unnecessary! questions!(Cohen,!
2009,!p.!4).!
If! Cohen! is! right,! virtue! ethics! and! virtue! epistemology! have! a!
distinctive!element!giving!them! their!allegedly!explanatory!power.! For!
him,!that!is!the!agent-centered!approach!adopted!by!both!views.!Firstly,!
“[v]irtue! ethics! focuses! broadly! on! agents! and! their! lives,! rather! than!
narrowly! on! just! their! actions,! just! their! motives,! or! just! governing!
principles”.!Secondly,!virtue!ethics!had!“a!change!in!focus!from!beliefs!to!
believers”!(Cohen,!2009,!p.!2),!that!is,!“from!what!to!think!to!what!kind!of!
thinker!to! be”!(Cohen,! 2009,! p.! 4).!Consequently,!Cohen’s! contention!is!
that!if!argumentation!theory!wants!to!be!as!fecund!as!virtue!ethics!and!
virtue! epistemology! seem! to! be,! it! has! to! adopt! an! agent-centered!
approach,!too.!From!his!view,!this!means!that!theories!of!argumentation!
should!agree! on! the!claim! that! “a! good! argument! is!one! that!has! been!
conducted!virtuously”!(Cohen,!2009,!p.!1).!Spelling!out!Cohen’s!concept!
of!a!good!argument!calls!for!the! clarification!of!the!concept! of!“virtue.”!
In! his! words,! virtues! are! “the! conditions! that! are! conducive! to! the!
desired!ends”!(Cohen,!2009,!p.!4).!Therefore,!a!good!argument!is!the!one!
satisfying! the! conditions! for! the! achievement! of! the! desired! end.! This!
second! formulation! of! Cohen’s! concept! of! a! good! argument! requires!
some! precision! on! the! concept! of! “desired! end.”! Because! one! of! the!
things! arguments! can! do! is! to! transform! agent’s! doxastic! states! from!

Douglas!Niño!and!Danny!Marrero!
!
!
736!
disbelief!to!belief! via!persuasion,!arguments! have!to! do!with! cognitive!
ends!(Cohen,!2009,!p.! 5).!Good,!or!virtuous,!arguments,! as!a!result,!are!
catalysts!of!cognitive!achievements.!For!instance,!along!with!persuasion,!
other!argumentative!virtues!allowing!cognitive!advancements!are:!
!
•!a!deepened!understanding!of!one’s!own!position;!
•!the!improvement!of!one’s!position;!
•! the! abandonment!of! a! standpoint! for! a! better! one! –! other!
than!the!opponent’s;!
•!a!deepened!understanding!of!the!opponent’s!position;!
•!a!deepened!appreciation!of!the!opponent’s!position;!
•! acknowledgement!of! (the! reasonableness! of)! another’s!
position;!
•!greater! attention!to!previously!over-looked! or! under-valued!
details;!
•! better! grasp!of! connections! and! how! things! might! be! fit!
together!in!a!big!picture;!
•!entitlement!to!one’s!own!position.!(Cohen,!2009,!p.!7)!
!
3.! THE! INCOMPLETENESS! PROBLEM! FOR! THE! VIRTUE!
ARGUMENTATION!THEORY!
!
Virtue! argumentation! theories,! such! as! Cohen’s,! have! been! recently!
attacked!by!the!Incompleteness!Problem!(IP).!According!to!MacPherson,!
the! incompleteness! of! virtue! argumentation! theories! are! two! sides! of!
the! same! coin.! On! one! side,! the! virtue! approach! to! argumentation! is!
incomplete! because! it! has! to! recur! to! elements! external! to! the! virtue!
approach!to!resolve!conflicts!of!argumentative!values.!On!the!other!side,!
if! virtue! argumentation! theorists! confine! themselves! to! the! limits! of!
their!approach,!they!are!not!able!to!“provide!us!with!a!reason!for!why!it!
is!good!to!be!a!virtuous!arguer”!(MacPherson,!2013,!p.!1).!This!being!so,!
the! virtue-centered! approach! to! argumentation! is! vulnerable! to! IP!
because!its!theoretical!tools!are!not!enough!for!dealing!with!some!of!the!
problems! arising! from! its! own! theoretical! framework.!What! is! more,!
when! virtue! argumentation! theorists! deal! with! problems! such! as! the!
mentioned! above,! they! are! forced! to! use! elements! belonging! to! their!
antagonistic!theories!such!as!the!utilitarian!or!the!dialectical-obligation!
approach!to!argumentation.!
MacPherson! illustrates! the! problem! of! conflicts! of!
argumentative!virtues!with!the!following!example:!
!
Suppose! two! evolutionary! biologists! [Deborah! and! Ibrahim]!
are!deeply!divided!on!the!issue!of!whether!evolution!is!a!result!
of! mutation,! natural! selection,! migration,! and! genetic! drift!

An!agentive!response!to!the!incompleteness!problem!
!
737!
!
(traditional! theory)! or! whether! evolution! is! explainable!
simply! in! terms! of! genetic! drift! (the! “neutral”! theory).! …!
[S]uppose!that!Ibrahim!like!Deborah!values!both!tenacity!with!
respect! to! one’s! position! along! with! keeping! an! open! mind.!
Ibrahim!is!committed!to!the!neutral!theory!of!evolution!on!the!
grounds! that! it! can! offer! new! insights! into! the! evolution! of!
sexual! reproduction! in! eukaryotic! organisms,! which! remains!
somewhat! of! a! mystery! in! the! context! of! a! more! traditional!
account! of! evolution.! However,! because! he! also! values! being!
open-minded,! he! does! not! carry! his! tenacity! to! a! vicious!
extreme.!He!is!willing!to!concede!to! Deborah’s! arguments!for!
the!traditional!view,!provided!that!they!are!cogent!and! closer!
to! the! truth! than! the!neutral! theory.! He! is! even! willing! to!
completely!abandon!his!own!account!of!evolution!if!it!does!not!
stand!up!to!the!traditional!account!of!evolution,!but!not!to!the!
point!of!simply!abandoning!his!position!without! putting! up! a!
serious!defense!of!his!own!views.!(MacPherson,!2013,!pp.!3-4)!
!
According!to!MacPherson,!this!case!shows!the!main!elements!of!IP.!First,!
in! this! case,! there! is! a! clash! of! argumentative! values.! On! one! hand,!
Ibrahim! values! the! tenacity! with! respect! to! his! own! position! given!
increasing! evidence! in! the! scientific! literature! supporting! the! neutral!
theory.! On! the! other! hand,! he! considers! it! important! to! keep! an! open!
mind! so! that! he! recognizes! arguments! that! could! defeat! his! position.!
None! of! these! argumentative! values! are! endorsed! to! an! extreme!
position! making! them! a! vice.! That! is,! Ibrahim! neither! defends! his!
position!to!the!point!of!becoming!dogmatic,!nor!is!he!as!open-minded!as!
to!accept!any!kind!of!argument!against!his!point!of!view.!Secondly,!given!
that! the! virtue! argumentation! theory! does! not! provide! criteria! for!
valuing!an!argumentative!value!over!another,!Ibrahim!cannot,!with!the!
virtue! argumentation! approach,! decide! whether! to! prefer! to! be!
tenacious! defending! his! position! or! to! be! open-minded! to! recognize!
possible!defeaters!against!his! theoretical!weaknesses.! Finally,!if! one!of!
the!values!under!conflict!had!to!be!preferred!over!the!other,!extra!virtue!
theoretical! elements! should! be! used,! such! as! if! Ibrahim! would! have!
preferred!to!stay!open-minded!because!of!the!utilitarian!criterion!of!the!
progress! of! science,! or! if! he! would! have! chosen! to! be! tenacious!
defending!his!view!because!he!believes!there!is!a!moral!responsibility!to!
defend!a!neutral!theory!of!evolution.!
To! clarify! IP’s! second! aspect,! MacPherson! recalls! that! Cohen!
grounds! argumentative! virtues! on! cognitive! achievements! as! the!
understanding! and! improvement! of! one’s! own! position,! the!
abandonment! of! a! standpoint! for! a! better! one,! the! understanding! and!
appreciation!of!the!opponent’s!position,!and!so!on.!In!this!sense,!“open-
mindedness! is! an! argumentative! virtue! grounded! in! the! cognitive!

Douglas!Niño!and!Danny!Marrero!
!
!
738!
achievement!of! more!deeply! appreciating!other! points!of! view.!On! the!
other! hand,! tenacity! is! an! argumentative! virtue! grounded! in! the!
cognitive! achievement! of! entitlement! to! one’s! own! position”!
(MacPherson,! 2013,! p.! 5).! Consequently,! MacPherson! interprets! that!
Cohen!claims!that!we!should!be!virtuous!agents!because!it!leads!to! the!
attainment!of!important!cognitive!ends!“that!are!universal!and!regarded!
as!important! by! all! human! beings”.! The! problem! for!Cohen! is! that! his!
cognitive!achievements! are!not! necessarily!universal.!For! instance,!the!
deepened! appreciation! of! another’s! position! might! be! different! for!
different! individuals.! Additionally,! the!cognitive! achievements!
suggested!by!Cohen!can!conflict! with!each!other.! This!takes!us! back!to!
the!lack!of!criteria!for!resolving!conflicts!of!argumentative!values.!
!
4.!AN!AGENTIVE!RESPONSE!TO!THE!INCOMPLETENESS!PROBLEM!
!
Our!working!hypothesis!is!that!a!theory!of!argumentation!clarifying!the!
cognitive!agendas!of!the!agents!arguing!not!only!provides!a!response!for!
IP,! but! also! shows! the! virtues! of! argumentation! in! agents’! cognitive!
enterprises.! Our! inspiration! comes! from! the! theory! of! fallacies! as!
cognitive! virtues! of! Dov! Gabbay! and! John! Woods! (2009),! more!
precisely,!from!their!multi-volume!of!Practical!Logic!of!Cognitive!Systems!
(2003;!2005;! Woods,!2013).! Shortly,!from!this! view,!some! fallacies!are!
cognitive! virtues! when! they! meet! the! conditions! of! resolution! of! the!
agenda,!or!agendas,!an!agent!is!disposed!to!close!or!advance.!To!clarify,!
an!agent!is!an!entity!with!capacity!for!acting!and!the!objective!he/she!is!
trying!to!obtain!is!his/her!agenda!(Gabbay!&!Woods,!2003,!pp.!183-185;!
pp.! 195-219;! Niño,! 2015,! p.!39).1!According! to! Dov! Gabbay! and! John!
Woods,! there! are! two! factors! that! determine! the! different! types! of!
cognitive!agents!(2005,!p.!11).!Firstly,!there!is!the!degree!of!command!of!
resources! (time,! information! and! computational! capability)! an! agent!
needs!to!advance!or!close!his/her!agendas.!Secondly,!is!the!height!of!the!
cognitive!bar!that! the!agent!has! set!for!him/herself.!With! this!in!mind,!
Gabbay! and! Woods! incorporate! a! hierarchical! approach! to! agency.! It!
postulates! a! hierarchy! in! which! agents! are! placed! in! light! of! their!
interests!and!their!capacities.!In!this!model,!individuals!would!be!placed!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!There! is! a! remarkable! difference! between! Gabbay! and! Woods’s! and! Niño’s!
approaches.!While! in!Gabbay!and!Woods’s!proposal,!the!agenda! is!understood!
as!the!aim!plus!the!plan!for!its!realization,!in!Niño’s!account,!the!agenda!is!just!
the! objective,! and! it! is! distinguished! from! its! conditions! of! resolution.! As! a!
consequence,! while! in! the! former,! if! something! is! not! planned,! it! is! not! an!
agenda,! in! the! latter,! everything! that! appears! as! an! aim! for! an! agent,! either!
deliberately!planned!or!not,!is!recognized!as!an!agenda.!

An!agentive!response!to!the!incompleteness!problem!
!
739!
!
towards! the! bottom! of! the! hierarchy! and! theoretical! agents! would! be!
higher!up.!While!individuals!“perform!their!cognitive!tasks!on!the!basis!
of! less! information! and! less! time! than! they! might! otherwise! like! to!
have”,!theoretical!agents!“can! wait!long!enough! to!make!a! try!for!total!
information,!and!they! can!run! the!calculations! that!close! their!agendas!
both!powerfully!and!precisely”!(2005,!pp.!11-12).!
The! standard! of! exigency! for! determining! the! precision! of! a!
response!changes!in!each!case:!a!major!precision!involves!more!specific!
information! or! more! strict! reasoning! methods.! This! is! why! it! is!
exaggerated! to! call! for! inductive! standards! (sampling,! probabilities!
calculus,! etc.)! for! practical! agendas! of! practical! agents! such! as! us.! For!
instance,! whereas! in! the! traditional! view! the! arrival! to! a! generic!
proposition!such!as!tigers!are!striped,!from!the!fact!that!one!has!seen!a!
striped! tiger! would! be! considered! a! fallacy,! in! Gabbay! and! Woods!
approach,!this!reasoning!is!considered!as!a!real!cognitive!virtue!because!
without! a! reasoning! of! this! kind,! our! species! would! have! been! not!
survived!(2009,!p.!86).!On!the!contrary,!inductive!standards!are!exigible!
to! theoretical! agents! such! as! NASA! who! have! a! great! amount! of! time,!
information!and!computational!capacity.!
Let!us!examine!MacPherson’s!response!to!IP.!In!his!words:!
!
Suppose!Ibrahim! finds!out! that! his!research! proposal!for! the!
[Natural!Sciences! and!Engineering! Research!Council! (NSERC)!
of! Canada]! defending! the! neutral! theory! of! evolution! has! a!
good! chance! of! being! short-listed! since! there! is! increased!
interest! in! the! scientific! community! regarding! the! neutral!
theory.!Then! it! may!be!in! his!best!interest! to! pursue!tenacity!
with! respect! to! his! own! theory! and! to! focus! less! on! being!
open-minded! with! respect! to! defenses! of! traditional!
evolutionary! theory.! If! Ibrahim’s! project! is! funded,! he! can!
employ!graduate!students!to!help!out!with!the!research!along!
with! bringing!prestige! to! his! institution,! and! it! may! advance!
significantly!the!field!of!evolutionary!theory.!(…)!
!
For! MacPherson,! the! conflict! among! virtues! (open-mindedness! vs.!
tenacity)! is! solved! when! one! keeps! in! mind! Ibrahim’s! agendas.!
However,!MacPherson!takes!for!granted!what!an! agent!is,!particularly,!
an!agent!who!is!a!biologist!researcher.!Certainly,!his!discussion!is!about!
the!conflict!among!virtues,!but!it!is!important!to!establish!how!an!agent!
adopts!certain! goals!or! entertain! certain! interests! and! not! others.!The!
social!role! of!a! scientist!in! his/her! community! implies!that!in! order!to!
advance! a! hypothesis! he/she! should! take! into! account! theoretical!
factors!such!as!simplicity,!consilience!and!coherence!(cf.!Thagard,!1978;!
Lipton,! 2004),! compacity,! falsiability,! and! consequences! on! other!

Douglas!Niño!and!Danny!Marrero!
!
!
740!
hypotheses.! Considering! all!those! factors! is! part! of! the! standard! of!
exigency! and! precision! a! good! scientist! should! take! into! account.! In!
MacPherson’s!example,!Ibrahim!does!not!contemplate!all!those!factors,!
but!he!can!choose!tenacity!because,!among!other!things,!he!can!fund!his!
research! and! bring! prestige! to! his! university.! Thus,! some! relevant!
theoretical! considerations! are! not! taken! into! account.! Ibrahim’s!
consideration,!instead,!seems!to!be!advantageous!for!the!institutional!or!
administrative!community,!but!it!does!not!seem!evident!that!it!is!so!for!
the! scientific! community.! On! the! contrary,! this! would! imply! giving!
priority!to!some!agendas!related!to!other!roles,!rather!than!the!one!he!is!
supposed! to! fulfill.! The! point! here! is! not! only! to! keep! in!mind! the!
agendas!an! agent!has! at!any! moment,!but! also!if!this! agent!adopts! the!
agendas! (and! their! standards)! he/she! should! have! adopted! at! each!
moment!and!how!he/!she!behaves!up!to!it.!
Notice!that!in!certain!social!roles!(i.e.,!being!a!lawyer,!a!medical!
doctor,!a!biological!researcher,!etc.)!the!exigible!standard!for!closing!the!
agendas! is! established! socio-historically.! To! illustrate,! the!
determination! of! a! certain! body! temperature! as! fever! requires! two!
exigency! and! precision! standards! if! the! agent! is! Jimmy’s! father! or!
Jimmy’s! pediatrician.! In! this! sense,! an! agent! performance! evaluation!
relates! the! efficiency! and! effectiveness! of! the! deployment! of! his/her!
cognitive! resources! in! reference! to! the! standard! that! his/her! agendas!
demand! for! their! proper! closure.!When! an! agent! accepts! or! adopts! a!
social!role!(or!at!least,!when!it!is!imputable!to!him/her),!it!is!exigible!to!
him/her! that! his/her! performance! meets! those! standards.! This! shows!
that!in!order! to!behave!properly,!the!agent! needs!to!align! his/her!own!
agendas! to! the! agendas! specified! by! the! role! he/she! is! supposed! to!
embody.!When!this!is!the!case!and!the!agent!systematically!succeeds!in!
achieving! those! role-related! agendas,! with! their! socially! standardized!
levels!of! exigency! and! precision,! the!agent! is! not!only! skillful,!but!also!
virtuous.!
!
5.!CONCLUSION!
!
To! conclude,! from! our! view,! an! agent! is! an! entity! with! capacity! for!
acting,! which! means,! to! have! agendas! and! to! try! to! carry! them! out!
according! to! the! resources! at! his/her! disposal.! Someone! is! a! virtuous!
agent!-in!the!sense! of!being!doxastically!reliable! -!when,!under!his/her!
actual!circumstance,!systematically!and!successfully!uses!the!resources!
at!his!disposal!as!a!means!of!adjustment!and!compensation!in!order!to!
obtain!his/her!agendas!in!the!best!way.!The!evaluation!of!“the!best!way”!
occurs!as!a!relationship!to!the! exigency!and!precision!the!standards!of!
the! agendas! that! are! intended! (or! should! be! intended)! to! close!

An!agentive!response!to!the!incompleteness!problem!
!
741!
!
according!to!the!roles!he/she!embodies,!and!this!involves!another!type!
of! virtuosity:! doxastic! responsibility.! This! implies,! in! itself,! also! to!
choose! which! agendas! to! give! priority,! and! accordingly,! this! involves!
that!he/she!should!align!her!personal! agendas!with!those!imposed!and!
expected!by!the!role.!
!
!
REFERENCES!
!
Aberdein,!A.!(2010).!Virtue!in!Argument.!Argumentation,!24,!165–179.!
Cohen,!D.,!(2007).!Virtue!epistemology!and!argumentation!theory.!In!H.Hansen!
&! C.! Tindale! (Eds.),! Dissensus! &! The! Search! for! Common! Ground.!
Proceedings! of! the! 7th! International! Conference!of! the! Ontario! Society!
for!the!Study!of!Argumentation!(OSSA),!Windsor,!6-9!June!2007,!(pp.!1-
9).!
http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA7/papersandcommenta
ries/29/!
Gabbay!D.,!&!Woods,!J.!(2003).!Agenda!relevance:!A!study!of!formal!pragmatics.!
A!practical!logic!of!cognitive!systems,!Vol.!1.!Amsterdam:!Elsevier.!!
Gabbay! D.,! &! Woods,! J.! (2005).! The! reach! of! abduction:! Insight! and! trial.! A!
practical!logic!of!cognitive!systems,!Vol.!2.!Amsterdam:!Elsevier.!
Gabbay,! D.,! &! Woods,! J.! (2009)! Fallacies! as! cognitive! virtues.! In! O.! Majer,! A.!
Pietarinen!&!T.!Tulenheimo!(Eds.),!Games:!Unifying!logic,!language!and!
philosophy!(pp.!57-98).!Dordrecht:!Springer.!
Lipton,! P.! (2004).! Inference! to! the! best! explanation.!London/New! York:!
Routledge.!
MacPherson,!B.!(2013).!The!incompleteness!problem!for!a!virtue-based!theory!
of! argumentation.! In! D.! Mohammed! &! M.! Lewiński! (Eds.),! Virtues! of!
Argumentation.!Proceedings!of!the!10th!International!Conference!of!the!
Ontario!Society!for!the!Study!of!Argumentation!(OSSA),!Windsor,!22-26!
May!2013,!(pp.!1-8).!
http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcomment
aries/111/!
Niño,! D.! (2015).! Elementos! de! semiótica! agentiva.! Bogotá:! Universidad! Jorge!
Tadeo!Lozano.!
Thagard,!P.!(1978).!The!best!explanation:!Criteria!for!theory!choice.!The!Journal!
of!Philosophy,!75,!76-92.!
Woods,! J.! (2013)! Errors! of! reasoning:! Naturalizing! the! logic! inference.! Milton!
Keynes:!College!Publications.!!