Not Just Rational, But Also Reasonable: Critical Testing in the Service of External Purposes of Public Political Arguments

Abstract

If a good argument is indeed the " one that fulfills its purpose " , then considering the multiple purposes of a (public political) argument becomes indispensable for its assessment. But different purposes may be in conflict, resulting in an inconsistent assessment. In this paper, I argue in favour of considering the distinction between rationality and reasonableness in order to solve this complication and arrive at a non-fragmented and consistent assessment of the quality of public political arguments.

Full text

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

© Individual author and College Publications 2016
All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-1-84890-211-4
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).!!"#$%&'()(*+',)'-,.&)/+'&-,!0(*+'1,2"+0&&-*'#/,+3,(4&,5/(,
6$"+7&)',8+'3&"&'0&,+',!"#$%&'()(*+'9,:*/;+'9,<=5>?,@+A?,B9,WDDC>5W?!London:!College!Publications.,
499!
22"
!
Not!Just!Rational,!But!Also!Reasonable:!
Critical!Testing!in!the!Service!of!External!Purposes!of!
Public!Political!Arguments!
!
DIMA!MOHAMMED!
!"#:);9,F'*G&"/*-)-&,Z+G),-&,:*/;+)9,2+"($#)A,
-?%+4)%%&-L30/4?$'A?7(,
!
!
If!a!good!argument!is!indeed!the!“one!that!fulfills!its!purpose”,!
then!considering! the!multiple! purposes!of! a!(public! political)!
argument! becomes! indispensable! for! its! assessment.! But!
different! purposes! may! be! in! conflict,! resulting! in! an!
inconsistent! assessment.! In! this! paper,! I! argue! in! favour! of!
considering! the! distinction! between! ")(*+')A*(H!and!
"&)/+');A&'&//!in!order! to! solve! this! complication! and! arrive!
at!a! non-fragmented!and!consistent! assessment!of!the!quality!
of!public!political!arguments.!
!
KEYWORDS:! accountability,! critical! testing,! deliberation,!
European! Parliament,! political! argument,! purpose! of!
argument,!rationality,!reasonableness!
!
!
1.!INTRODUCTION!
!
Assessing! the! reasonableness! of! public! political! arguments! is! a!
complicated!task.! An!important!aspect! of!the! complication!arises! from!
the!fact!that!these!arguments!are!typically!multi-purposive.!A!politician!
arguing! publically! is! out! to! achieve! several! goals! by! means! of!
argumentation.! Public! political! arguments! arise! in! response! to!
competing! demands.! This! is! sometimes! the! result! of! the! multi-
dimensional!nature!of!the!responsibility!of!a!politician!and!other!times!
the!result!of!the!multi-purposive!nature!of!political!institutions!or!even!
simply! because! public! political! discourse! is! open! to! individuals! and!
groups! that! have! different! interests! and! needs! as! well! different!
commitments!and!positions.!This!is!the!case!in!open!public!debates!just!
as!it!is!in!considerably!formal!institutional!contexts,!such!as!the! British!
or! the! European! Parliament.! Parliamentary! debates,! for! example,! are!
not!only!means!for!deliberating!policies!and!legislations,!but!also!means!

R*%),P+4)%%&-,
,
!
500!
for! holding! the! executives! to! account.! In! examining! public! political!
arguments,! it! is! important! to! consider! the! multiple! goals! an! arguer!
pursues! in! order! to! understand! the! strategic! function! of! the!
argumentative! choices! made! by! arguers.! Furthermore,! if! a! good!
argument!is!indeed!the!“one!that!fulfills!its!purpose”!(Johnson,!2000,!p.!
181),! considering! the! multiple! purposes! is! also! indispensable! for! the!
assessment! of! arguments.! Taking! the! multiple! purposes! into! account!
when!assessing!arguments!saves!the!assessment!from!being!partial!but!
poses! an! important! challenge:!different! purposes! are! often! in! conflict!
which!may!make!the!assessment!inconsistent.!
In! this! paper,! I! argue! in! favour! of! considering! the!distinction!
between!what!is!rational!and!what!is!reasonable!as!an!important!step!in!
arriving!at!a!non-fragmented!and!consistent!assessment!of!the!quality!of!
public! political! arguments.! The! distinction! runs! parallel! to! another!
distinction,! important! when! considering! the! multitude! of! goals!
associated!with! argumentation:! the! distinction!between! goals! that!are!
*'("*'/*0!to! argumentation! and! others! that! are! &_("*'/*0!to! it.! The!
distinction! is! particularly! crucial! when! considering! the! question! of!
whether!or!not!the!norms!for!assessing!arguments!can!be!derived!from!
the!functions!of!an!argument.!This!is!in!fact!an!important!question,!and!I!
would! like! to! start! this! paper! by! addressing! it! (section! 2).! Following!
that,! I! introduce! the! distinction!between! what! is! rational! and! what! is!
reasonable! and! explain! how! it! is! applied! (Section! 3).! The! way! the!
distinction!works! and!the!gains!we!get!from! it!will!be! illustrated!using!
an! example! from! the! European! Parliament! (EP).! I! conclude! by!
discussing!the!implications!of!the!proposal!and!raising!further!questions!
in! relation! to! the! relationship! between! the! goals! of! arguers! and! the!
norms!of!evaluating!their!arguments.!
!
2.! ! IS! A! GOOD! ARGUMENT! INDEED! THE! ONE! THAT! FULFILS! ITS!
PURPOSE?!!
!
The! understanding! that! a! good! argument! is! the! one! that! fulfils! its!
purpose! (Johnson,! 2000)! may! seem! to! be! commonplace! among!
argumentation! scholars! (van! Eemeren! &!Grootendoorst,! 1987;! van!
Eemeren! &! Houtlosser,! 2008;! Walton! &! Krabbe,! 1995).! ! But! it! isn’t!
really,!at!least!not!without!challenges.!‘Function!claims’!that!attribute!a!
‘determinable! function’!to!argumentation! and! warrant! deriving! norms!
for!assessment!from!such!a!function!have!been! challenged!by!Goodwin!
(2007),!for!example.!Goodwin’s!challenge!is!largely!justified!by!the!lack!
of! evidence! of! one! single! ), 7"*+"*!‘determinable! function’! for!
argumentation.! Goodwin! rightly! cites! many! possible! functions! of!
arguments,! other! than! the! ones! referred! to! by! the! proponents! of!

Z+(,M$/(,")(*+')A9,;$(,)A/+,"&)/+');A&,
,
!
501!
‘function!claims’,!and!points!out!to!the!lack!of!criteria!for!deciding!which!
of!these!functions!can!be!the!one!that!warrants!deriving!norms!(ibid).!!
Goodwin! is! right,! at! least! when! it! comes! to! the! question!
concerning! which! of! the! functions! of! argumentation! is! the! one! once!
fulfilled! the!argument! can!be!considered! good,! and! why.! The!question!
remains!largely! unanswered.!! In!order!to! answer!it,! more!examination!
needs! to! be! conducted! in! relation! to! the! different! possible! goals! and!
functions!of!arguments,!their!nature!and!status.!!
The!goals!recognised!by!argumentation!scholars!as!relevant!for!
the! examination! of! argumentation! are! of! different! natures! (See!
Mohammed,!2015,!for!a!detailed!survey).!While!some!of!these!goals!can!
be!considered!*'("*'/*0!to!argumentation,!i.e.!goals!of! argumentation!in!
and!of!itself!and!in!any!context!(e.g.!the!goal!to!convince!or!to!rationally!
persuade),!there!are! also! goals!that! are! &_("*'/*0!to!argumentation,!i.e.!
goals! originating! outside! of! argumentation,! usually! in! the! contexts! in!
which! arguments! occur! (e.g.! the! goal! to! win! votes,! the! goal! to! get! a!
customer! to! buy! a! product! …! etc).! Also,! within! both! *'("*'/*0!and!
&_("*'/*0,goals!of!argumentation,!some!of!the!goals!identified!are!goals!of!
the!(individual)! )0(, +3,)"#$*'#!(e.g.! the!goal! to!convince!or! the! goal!to!
win!votes)!while!other!goals!are!(collective)!goals!of!the!)"#$%&'()(*G&,
*'(&")0(*+'/!in!which!the!act!of!arguing!occurs!(e.g.!the!goal!of!critically!
testing!standpoints!or!the!goal!to!exercise!accountability).!!
Looking!at! the! goals! identified!by! argumentation! scholars,!one!
cannot! but! notice! that! systematisation! is! needed.! Goals,! functions,!
purposes,!or!aims!are!often!used!to!refer!to!more!or!less!the!same!thing.!
That!in!itself!is!not!necessarily!a!problem!given!the!important!common!
meaning! between! these! terms.! Nevertheless,! what! does! create!
confusion! is! that! the! terminology! used! does! not! always! capture! the!
different!natures!of!the!different!goals,!functions!or!purposes!discussed.!
As!a!result,!crucial!differences!get!obscured!under! similar!terminology!
and!useful! similarities! get!hidden! under!apparent!differences.! Because!
goals!of!different!natures!should!play!different!roles!in!the!analysis!and!
evaluation!of! arguments,! the! systematisation! of!the! concept! of! goal! in!
argumentation! scholarship! is! necessary! before! we! can! decide! which!
goals! warrant! norms! for! assessing! arguments! and! why!(Mohammed,!
2015).!
Distinguishing!between!*'("*'/*0!and!&_("*'/*0!as!well!as!between!
*'-*G*-$)A!and! 0+AA&0(*G&!goals! are! two! crucial! steps! in! the!
systematisation! of! the! concept! of! goal! (and! in! deciding! which! goals!
warrant! norms! for! assessing! arguments! and! why).! These! two!
distinctions! can! be! applied! in! two! successive! steps:! we! first! classify!
goals!into! two! categories!along! the! intrinsic-extrinsic!divide! and! then,!
within!each!of!the!categories,!we!distinguish!between!goals!of!the!act!of!

R*%),P+4)%%&-,
,
!
502!
arguing,! which! represent! individual! goals,! and! goals! of! the!
argumentative!interaction,!which!represent!collective!goals.!!
In!order!to!reflect!the!particular!nature!of!a!certain!goal,!I!have!
suggested!that!we!refer!to!a!goal!that!is!intrinsic!as!an!)*%!or!a!3$'0(*+'!
and!to!a!goal!that!is!extrinsic!as!a!$/&!or!a!7$"7+/&!(Mohammed.!2015).!
As!a!result,!we!would!speak!of!five!different!types!of!goals.!On!the!one!
hand,!we!would!speak!of!an!*'("*'/*0,0+'/(*($(*G&, )*%!of!argumentation!
(justification!or!manifest!rationality!–!what!makes!a!certain!act!count!as!
arguing)!and!of!)',*'("*'/*0,3$'0(*+',+3,(4&,)0(,+3,)"#$*'#,(convincing!or!
rational!persuasion)!as!well!as!)',*'("*'/*0,3$'0(*+',+3,(4&,)"#$%&'()(*G&,
*'(&")0(*+',(critically!testing!standpoints).!On!the!other!hand,!we!would!
speak!of!$/&/,+3,(4&,)0(,+3,)"#$*'#!(when!the!extrinsic!goal!is!individual)!
and! of! purposes! of! the! argumentative! interaction! (when! the! extrinsic!
goal! is! a! collective).!Table! 1,! below,! summarises! the! proposal! and!
situates! the! different! goals! identified! in! the! argumentation! literature!
under!the!categories!they!would!belong!to.!
!
""""Types""
"""""of"Goals"
"
"
"
"
Approaches"
Intrinsic"
Extrinsic"
Constitutive"
aim"
Function""
of"the"act"of"
arguing"
Function""
of"the"
argumentative"
interaction"
uses""
of"the"act"of"
arguing"
purposes""
of"the"
argumentative"
interaction"
Bermejo-Luque"
Justify!a!claim!
!
!
!
!
Gilbert’s"
coalescent!
argumentation!
Reach!a!coalescent!situation!
Face!and!task!goals;!
Motives!
Johnson’s"
manifest!
rationality"
Manifest!
rationality!
Rational!
persuasion!
!
Inquiry;!
Belief-
maintenance;!
Decision-
making;!!
…!etc!
,!
,
Toulmin"
Justification!
!
Other!uses!of!
arguments!
!
Van"Eemeren""
et"al."
"
Justify!an!
opinion!
Convince!an!
opponent!of!
the!
acceptability!
of!an!opinion;!
rhetorical!
goals!
Critically!testing!
standpoints;!
critically!
resolving!
differences!of!
opinion;!
dialectical!goals!
Consecutive!
perlocutionary!
consequences!of!!
the!speech!act!of!
arguing!!
Institutional!goals!!
Walton"&"
Krabbe’s"
dialogue!types"
!!
!!
Arguers’!aims!in!
dialogue!types!
Goals!of!dialogue!
types!
Table! 1! –! Goals! in! Argumentation! Literature,! an! Overview!
(Mohammed,!2015.)!

Z+(,M$/(,")(*+')A9,;$(,)A/+,"&)/+');A&,
,
!
503!
To! come! back! to! the! question! raised! at! the! beginning! of! this!
section,!if!a! good!argument! is!indeed! the!“one!that! fulfills!its!purpose”!
(Johnson,!2000,!p.!181),!and!arguments!fulfil!a!variety!of!functions,!uses!
and!purposes,! how! do!we! decide! which!of! these! to!consider! when! we!
evaluate! (public! political)! arguments?! The! different! types! of! goals!
(functions,!uses,! or! purposes)! give!rise! to! different!types!of! norms,! all!
applicable! and! useful,! albeit! in! different! ways.! For! example,! only! the!
norms! derived! from! the! intrinsic! functions! of! arguments! (i.e.! the!
function! of! convincing! and! that! of! critical! testing)! can! be! considered!
“argumentative”!norms,!i.e.! norms!that! tell!us! whether! an!argument! is!
#++-, *', *(/&A3!‘independent’! of! whether! or! not! it! has! any! positive!
interpersonal! or! socio-political! consequences.! Norms! derived! from!
extrinsic!uses!and! purposes!are! not!argumentative! in!that! sense.!They!
are!rather!context-derived!norms!that!tell!us!more!about!the!positive!or!
negative!interpersonal!or! socio-political!consequences!of! an!argument:!
does!the!argument!support!rational!decision-making?!does!it!contribute!
to!the!exercise!of!accountability?!…!etc.!These!context-dependent!norms!
need!to!be!distinguished!from!the!intrinsic!argumentative!norms.!After!
all,! it! isn’t! uncommon! that! a! convincing! argument! fails! in! achieving!
desired!context-dependent!consequences.!The!two!types!of!norms!need!
to! be! distinguished! in! order! to! explain! what! happens! in! such! cases.1!
However,! as! I! will! argue! in! the! next! section,! the! two! should! not! be!
totally! independent.! Without! synchrony! between! the! two,! our!
assessment!of!arguments!may!end!up!being!useless!and!meaningless.!!!
Needless! to! say! that! we! may! derive! norms! from! *'-*G*-$)A!
functions! or!uses! as!well!as! from! 0+AA&0(*G&!functions!or!purposes.!The!
choice!we!make!depends!more!on!what!we!want!to!assess!and!why.!Are!
we!interested!in!the!extent!to!which!a!political!campaign!is!successful!in!
raising!support!for!a!certain!policy!proposal!(individual!use)!or!rather!in!
the!extent!to!which!the!campaign!supports!good!deliberation!about!this!
proposal!(collective!purpose)?! In!principle,! both!questions!are! worthy!
of!investigation.!One!needs!to!decide!what!s/he!would!like!to!investigate!
and! ask! the! question! that! is! relevant.! See! Mohammed! (2015)! for! a!
detailed!discussion!of!the!norms!that!are!relevant!for!examining!public!
political!arguments,!for!example.!!
So,! in! short,! all! goals! (functions,! uses! and! purposes)! warrant!
norms,! it’s! just! important! to! distinguish! the! different! types! of! norms!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!No!keeping!the!distinction!between!the!intrinsic!functions!and!extrinsic!uses!
and!purposes!is!probably!the!most!important!weakness!of!Walton!and!Krabbe’s!
concept!of!dialogue!types.!While!for!some!dialogue!types,!the!defining!goal!is!a!
goal!*'("*'/*0,(+!argumentation!(e.g.,!persuasion),!for!others!the!goal!is!more!of!
an!&_("*'/*0!goal!(e.g.,!negotiation).!

R*%),P+4)%%&-,
,
!
504!
warranted,!what! they!assess!and! to!apply! the!ones!that! are!useful!for!
the!purpose!of!the!analysis!and!evaluation.!
!
3.!SYNCHRONY!NOT!MERGER:!INTRINSIC!FUNCTIONS!AND!EXTRINSIC!
PURPOSES!
!
Just! like! I! emphasised! that! it! is! important! to! keep! the! intrinsic!
argumentative! norm! distinct! from! those! extrinsic! context-dependent!
norms,! I! would! like! to! stress! that! it! is! actually! equally! important! to!
maintain!some!(minimum)!synchrony!between!the!two! types.!Without!
such!a!synchrony!the!assessment!of!arguments!would!not!be!of!any!use,!
apart! maybe! from! the! mental! gymnastics! involved! in! the! abstract!
activity! of! assessing! argument! for! the! sake! of! assessing! them.!
Arguments! are! typically! employed! in! the! service! of! some! context-
dependent! uses! and! purposes.! A! useful! analysis! is! one! that! shows! us!
how!this!happens!(i.e.!how!argumentation!contributes!to!socio-political!
processes)! and! a!meaningful! assessment! is! one! that! can! explain! the!
success! or! failure! of! an! argument! to! fulfil! its! uses! or! purposes! on! the!
basis!of!its!argumentative!quality.!
In! order! to!achieve! some! synchrony! between! the! intrinsic! and!
extrinsic! norms,! it! is! necessary! to! adopt! a! perspective! in! which! the!
intrinsic! functions! of! arguments! serve! its! extrinsic! uses! and! purposes.!
From! this! perspective,! the! justification! distinctive! of! argumentation!
contributes! to! socio-political! processes! through! convincing! and! the!
critical! testing! of! differences! of! opinion,! i.e.! through! argumentation’s!
intrinsic! functions.! An! arguer! who! engages! in! the! justification! of! a!
standpoint!attempts,!first,!to!convince! an!opponent!of!the! acceptability!
of!the!disputed!standpoint,!and!through!that,!some!extrinsic!uses!of!the!
argument,!specific!to! the!context! of!the!argumentative! interaction,!can!
be!made.!For!example,!by!convincing!an!audience!that!(4&,7&"3+"%)'0&,
+3, (4&, n+G&"'%&'(, */, $7, (+, /()'-)"-/9!a! Prime! Minister! arguing! in! the!
parliamentary! session! of! Question! Time! (PMQT)! can! portray! his!
Government!as! competent.!Furthermore,!viewing!argumentation! as!an!
interaction,!arguers’!justification!fulfils!the!function!of!critical!testing!of!
the!disputed! standpoints!through!which! arguers!can! achieve!collective!
purposes! which! are! specific! to! the! context! of! the! argumentative!
interaction.! For! example,! by! engaging! in! the! critical! testing! of! the!
standpoints!about!whether!or!not!(4&,7&"3+"%)'0&,+3,(4&,n+G&"'%&'(,*/,
$7,(+,/()'-)"-/,!arguers!in!PMQT!can!achieve!the!purpose!of!holding!the!
Government!to!account.!
Here,! I’d! like! to! be! more! specific,! and! discuss! a! little! bit! the!
functions,! uses! and! purposes! that! are! relevant! for! evaluating! public!
political!arguments!in!particular,!i.e.!public!argument!that!contribute!to!

Z+(,M$/(,")(*+')A9,;$(,)A/+,"&)/+');A&,
,
!
505!
socio-political! processes.! As! ! do! that,! I! am! guided! by!considerations!
related!to!the!characteristics!of!arguments!in!the!public!political!sphere!
as!well!as! the! benefits! that!we! may! get! from!the! different! choices! we!
make.! The! main! benefit! I! have! in! mind! is! to! be! able! to! conduct! an!
examination! that! enhances! the! ‘emancipatory! potential’! (Habermas,!
1984)! of! public! political! arguments! and! contribute! to! empowering!
members! of! the! general! public! to! become! active! participants! in! the!
political! life.! In! such! an! examination,! the! norms! derived! for! the!
collective! function! of! argumentative! interactions! and! its! purposes! are!
more!relevant!than!those!derived!from!the!individual!function!of!the!act!
of!arguing!and!its!uses.!This!is!mainly!because!focusing!on!the!goals! of!
argumentative! interactions! emphasises! the! agency! of! members! of! the!
general!public,!which!allows!us!to!consider!them!as!active!participants!
in!the!argument!and!in!the!socio-political!process!to!with!the!argument!
contributes.!!
Assessing!the!quality!of!the!argument!in!relation!to!the!goals!of!
the!act!of!arguing,!namely!in!relation!to!convincing!and!to!the!individual!
political!uses!of!it,!would!tell!us!something!about!the!rhetorical!quality!
of!the!arguments!and!to!their!political!effectiveness!as!tools!to!fulfil!the!
individual! political! aspirations! of! the! arguers.! Assessing! the! quality! of!
the! argument! in! relation! to! the! goals! of! argumentative! interactions!
would! instead! tell! us! something! about! the! dialectical! quality! of!
argumentative! moves,! i.e.! about! their! role! in! the! critical!testing! of!
standpoints,!and!about!their!contribution!to!the!collective!purposes!for!
which! arguers! engage! in! argumentation.! The! latter! is! definitely! more!
relevant!if!we!intend!our!examination!to!help!empower!members!of!the!
general!public!to! be!competent!participants!in!democratic!life.!Keeping!
the!above! in! mind,!assessing! the! quality!of! a!public!political! argument!
will! focus! on! the! extent! to! which! the! argument! fulfils! the! intrinsic!
function!of!critical!testing!as!well!as!the!extrinsic!purpose!derived!from!
the!socio-political! process!in! which!the! argument! occurs.!I! propose!to!
refer!to!the!former!as!")(*+')A*(H!and!to!the!latter!as!"&)/+');A&'&//.!
To!assess!the!rationality!of!an!argument!on!the!basis!of!the!norm!
derived!from!argumentation’s!intrinsic!function!and! reasonableness!on!
the!basis!of!the!norms!derived!from!its!extrinsic!purposes!is!in!line!with!
the! distinction! between! rationality! and! reasonableness! in! major!
philosophical! works! (e.g.! Rawls,! Perelman;! see! also! Cohen,! 2011).!
Assessing!rationality!in!relation!to!the! intrinsic!norm!of!argumentation!
is!in!line!with!the!understanding!of!rationality!as!a!universal!norm!that!
applies! at! micro/! local/singular! levels! of! assessment.! Assessing!
Reasonableness! in! relation! to! the! extrinsic! socio-political! purposes! of!
argumentation!is!in!line!with!viewing! reasonableness!as!a!norm!that!is!

R*%),P+4)%%&-,
,
!
506!
more! encompassing,! and! taking! more! contextual! considerations! into!
account.!!
In! view! of! the! above,! an! argument! is! rational! in! as! much! as! it!
furthers!the!critical! testing! of!the!disputed!standpoint,! and! reasonable!
in! as! much! as! it! furthers! the! socio-political! process! it! is! part! of! (e.g.!
deliberation,! exercising! accountability! …! etc).! Here,! it! is! important! to!
emphasise!again!the! necessity!of!synchrony! between!critical!testing!as!
an! intrinsic!function! and! other! extrinsic! purposes! derived! from! the!
socio-political! contexts! of! arguments.! Assessing! the! rationality! of! an!
argument! makes! sense! only! as! long! as! there! is! at! least! one! socio-
political! purpose! for! which! it! is! beneficial! to! critically! test! the!
standpoints! disputed! (i.e.! to! engage! in! an! argumentative! interaction).!
Otherwise,! argumentation! remains! just! a! (hopefully)! enjoyable!
intellectual! exercise.! In! the! good! cases! where! critical! testing! is!
instrumental! for! a! broader! societal! political! process,! a! rational!
argument!would!also!be! a!reasonable!one!(from!the! perspective!of!the!
purpose! the! argument! is! supposed! to! serve).! Rationality! becomes! the!
basis! for! reasonableness:! the! quality! of! the! critical! testing! procedure!
offers!a!good!explanation!for!why!a!certain!argument!succeeds!or!fails!in!
fulfilling!its!purpose.!!
But!this!does!not!mean!that!the!distinction!between!rational!and!
reasonable!would!be!totally!redundant:!(public!political)!arguments!are!
rarely! mono-purposive,! which! makes! the! judgment! of! reasonableness!
not!always!a!simple!and!straightforward!consequence!of!the!rationality!
judgment.! For! example,! parliamentary! argumentative! exchanges! that!
are!used!for!the!purpose!of!deliberation!about!future!courses!of! action!
are!usually!also!used!in!order!to!exercise!accountability!and!assess!the!
performance! of! those! who! are! in! power.! In! order! to! do! that,! arguers!
engage!in!the!discussion!of!two!issues:!m4)(,*/,(4&,;&/(,0+$"/&,+3,)0(*+',
(+,;&,()J&',*',"&/7+'/&,(+,(4&,7"+;A&%)(*0,/*($)(*+',)(,*//$&h!As!well!as!B/,
(4&,7&"3+"%)'0&,+3,(4&,)$(4+"*(*&/,$7,(+,/()'-)"-h!While!the!discussion!
of!the! first!issue! serves!the! deliberation!process,! the!discussion! of!the!
second! serves! the! accountability! process.! The! two! discussions! (about!
the! two! issues)! can! be! distinguished! analytically! but! are! usually!
intertwined!in!reality.!Typically,!the!issues!are!discussed!simultaneously!
by!means! of!argumentative!moves! that!contribute!to! the!discussion! of!
the!two!issues!at!the!same!time!(something!like!a!divergent!argument).!
That! means! that! the! same! argumentative! move! can! be! used! in! the!
service!of!more!than!just!one!purpose.!!
It!is!not!at!all!unusual!that!an!argument!is!a!rational!contribution!
to!the!discussion!of!the!future!course!of!action!but!not!so!when!it!comes!
to!the!discussion!of!the!performance!of!those!who!are!in!power.!Political!
discourse!is!full!of!examples!where!pro-government!supporters!employ!

Z+(,M$/(,")(*+')A9,;$(,)A/+,"&)/+');A&,
,
!
507!
arguments! that! are! perfectly! reasonable! deliberation-wise! but! which!
obstruct!holding!governments! accountable!for! the!policies! and!actions!
that! might! have! caused! the! problematic! situations,! i.e.! unreasonable!
accountability-wise.! While! the! rationality! is! a! ‘local’! judgment! that!
applies! within! a! single! discussion,! reasonableness! is! a! more!
encompassing!judgment!that!takes!into!account!the!quality!of!the!move!
in!the!multiple!simultaneous!discussion!the!move!contributes!to,!i.e.!its!
contribution! to! the! multiple! extrinsic! processes! the! move! is! part! of.!
Taking! into! account! the! multiple! purposes! of! a! public! political!
argument,! reasonableness! becomes!an! inter-purpose! judgment! that!
synthetises! the! multiple! judgements! of! rationality! across! the! different!
discussions,! each! of! which! is! associated! with! one! of! the! multiple!
purposes.!!
In! view! of! the! distinction! between! rational! and! reasonable!
arguments,! we! are! guided! to! integrate! contextual! considerations! into!
our! assessment! of! arguments! in! two! necessary! ways.! The! first! way! is!
similar!to!what!has!been!already!argued!for!by!van!Eemeren!(2010,!Ch.!
5):! contextual! considerations! specify! the! general! universal! norm! of!
critical!testing!into!specific!criteria!that!take!into!account!the!rules!and!
conventions!of!the!argumentative!practices!at!issue.!This!is!necessary!in!
order! to! arrive! at! a! judgment! of! argumentative! rationality! that! is!
context-sensitive! and! meaningful.! For! example,! this! helps! us! avoid!
arriving!at!meaningless!fallacy!judgments!(those!fallacy!judgments!that!
do! not! take! constraints! of! context! into! account).! The! second! way! of!
integrating!contextual!considerations,!which!complements!the!first!one,!
is!meant!to!take!the!multiple!purposes!of!arguments!into!account!when!
formulating! judgments! of! reasonableness.! Contextual! considerations!
will! determine! which! external! purposes! can! be! attributed! to!
argumentative! exchanges! and! also! how! these! purposes! are! connected!
and! how! they! should! be! considered:! should! they! be! ordered! in! a!
hierarchy!of!importance?!Or!rather!balanced!as!much!as!possible?!…!etc.!
This!is!crucial!as!it!enables!us!to!arrive!at!judgments!of!reasonableness!
that! consider! the! contribution! of! arguments! to! broader! socio-political!
processes!and! trace!this! contribution!to! specific!argumentative! moves!
in!their!particular!contexts.!
In! the! next! section,! I! apply! the! distinction! between! rationality!
and!reasonableness!in!examining! a!debate!in!the! European!Parliament!
(EP),!a!relatively!young!venue!for!public!political!arguments,!with!a!fast!
growing! scope! of! influence.! The! debate! is! a! good! example! of!
argumentative!practices!that!are!conventionally!multi-purposive!and!for!
which! the! distinction! between! rational! and! reasonable!arguments! is!
useful.! The! examination! is! meant! to! illustrate! the! way! the! distinction!
works,!its!merits!as!well!as!its!limitations.!

R*%),P+4)%%&-,
,
!
508!
4.!CASE!STUDY!!
!
The! debate! I! examine! (European! Parliament,! 2013)! is! about! an!
important!recent!controversy!in!the!EU,!namely!the!issue!of!privacy!and!
personal!data!protection!at!a!time!of!“security!threats”.!Nevertheless,!it!
is!not!one!of!those!exceptionally!televised!argumentative!encounters.!It!
is!more!like!an!ordinary,!even!a!bit!mundane,!argumentative!event!like!
the!majority!of!public!political!arguments,!which!makes!it!a!good!case!to!
examine.!!
The! debate! came! in! response! to! claims! by! whistle-blower!
Edward! Snowden,! published! in! media,! that! the! US! National! Security!
Agency!(NSA)! monitors!bank!data!in!the!EU! (BBC! News,!2013).!In!it,! it!
was! discussed! whether! or! not! to! suspend! the! financial! data! exchange!
agreement!between!the!EU!and!the!USA,!the!Terrorist!Finance!Tracking!
Programme!(TFTP).2!The! debate!started!by! an! introductory!statement!
by!Commissioner!for!Home!Affairs!Cecilia!Malmström,!who!outlined!the!
response! of! the! Commission! to! the! allegations! (see! Appendix).! Her!
statement! was! followed! by! short! speeches! by! representatives! of! the!
political!groups!at!the!EP,!then!by!speeches!by!other!Members!of!the!EP!
(MEPs)! and! ended! with! a! concluding! statement! by! Commissioner!
Malmström.! The! Commissioner! was! not! in! favour! of! suspending! the!
agreement,!but!the!general!mood!among!MEPs!was!in!favour!of!that.3!!
EP!debates!on!Commissioner’s!statements!are!characteristically!
multi-purposive.! In! them,! MEPs! attempt! to! influence! the! EU! policy!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2!The!TFTP!was!set!up!by!the!U.S.!Treasury!Department!shortly!after!the!attacks!
of!11!September!2001,!and! was!approved!by!the! EP! under!the!Lisbon!Treaty.!
Supporters! of! TFTP! argue! that! the! agreement! has! generated! significant!
intelligence! data! that! helped! the! U.S.! and! EU! States! in! ‘their! fight! against!
terrorism’.!But!problems! in! the!implementation! of! the!agreement!have! driven!
many!to! call!it!into!question.!The!media!reports!based!on!the!claims!made!by!
Snowden!made!these!sceptical!voices!even!more!prominent.!
3!The!general!mood!in!the!debate!was!in!favour!of!the!suspension,!even!though!
the!EPP,!the!largest!party!in!the!EP!since!1999!was!against!it.!A!week!after!the!
debate,!different!political!groups!proposed!motions!for!action.!The!vote!on!the!
motions!took!place!in!the!plenary!session!of!23!October,!and!a!joint!motion!for!
a! resolution! was! approved,! in! which! the! EP! called! on! the! Commission! to!
“suspend!the!Terrorist! Finance!Tracking!Program! (TFTP)!agreement! with! the!
US! in! response! to! the! US! National! Security! Agency's! alleged! tapping! of! EU!
citizens'!bank! data! held! by! the!Belgian! company! SWIFT”.!The! resolution!was!
passed!by!280!votes!to!254,!with!30!abstentions.!Although!the!EP!has!no!formal!
powers!to!initiate!the!suspension!or!termination!of!an!international!deal,!"the!
Commission! will! have! to! act! if! Parliament! withdraws! its! support! for! a!
particular!agreement",!says!the!approved!text.!

Z+(,M$/(,")(*+')A9,;$(,)A/+,"&)/+');A&,
,
!
509!
making!by!deliberating!with!Commissioners!future!courses!of!action!in!
relation! to! topical! issues.! Furthermore,! the! Commission! is! held!
accountable! for! its! past! and! present! conduct! in! relation! to! this! same!
issue:!the!Commissioner!defends!its!conduct!in!the!face!of!the!scrutiny!
exercised! by! MEPs.! Obviously,! argumentation! plays! a! central! role! in!
both!processes:!deliberation!is! conducted!by! means!of! arguments!that!
justify!practical!claims!about!future!courses!of!action,!and!accountability!
is! exercised! by! means! of! arguments! that! justify! an! evaluative! claim!
about!the!conduct!of!the!Commission.!(see!Mohammed,!2015.!for!more!
information!about!EP!debates!on!Commissioner’s!statements!as!well!as!
a!detailed!analysis!of!this!particular!debate).!!
As!in!other!similar!debates,!the!argumentative!exchanges!in!the!
TFTP!debate!contribute!to!these!two!important!political!processes.!The!
argumentative! exchanges! contribute! to! the! deliberation! about! the!
measures!that!need!to!be!taken!in!response!to!the!alleged!NSA!spying!as!
well! as! to! the! scrutinising! of! the! conduct! of! the! commission! in! what!
relates! to! the! protection! of! the! data! of! EU! citizens.! This! happens! by!
engaging!in! the!discussion! of!(at!least)! two!issues:! whether!or! not!the!
TFTP! should! be! suspended! and! whether! or! not! the! conduct! of! the!
Commission! is! up! to! standard.! In! both! cases,! the! critical! testing! of!
standpoints!can! be!assumed!to! be!instrumental!for! the!relevant! socio-
political!process,!i.e.!there! is!synchrony! between!the! intrinsic!function!
and!the!extrinsic!purposes!of!the!argument.!
!Commissioner!Malmström!opposed!the!suspension!of!the!TFTP!
and! defended! her! performance! as! satisfactory.! In! her! statement,! she!
described! in! details! her! efforts! to! investigate! the! situation:! the!
numerous! meetings! she! had! had! with! the! US! officials,! the! many!
confirmations! she! has! obtained! from! them! and! the! many! further!
information! she! had! requested! them! to! provide.! In! view! of! the!
disagreement! about! the! suspension! of! TFTP,! the! actions! listed! can! be!
understood! as! attempts! to! justify! that! (4&"&, */, '+, '&&-, (+, /$/7&'-, (4&,
)#"&&%&'(!since! *'G&/(*#)(*+'/, /4+K, '+, &G*-&'0&, +3, (4&, )AA&#&-, /7H*'#.!
But! by! listing! her! efforts! in! detail,! Commissioner! Malmström! was!
obviously! not! just! concerned! with! denying! the! need! to! suspend! the!
TFTP.!The!detailed!list!of!actions!is!clearly!also!an!attempt!to!justify!the!
claim! that! X4&, 0+'-$0(, +3, (4&, 8+%%*//*+', */, /)(*/3)0(+"H.! In! fact,!
observing! the! formulations! used! to! represent! the! several! meetings!
conducted,! the! requests! made! and! the! confirmations! obtained! by! the!
Commissioner,!one!cannot!miss!the!Commissioner’s!effort!to!defend!her!
own!conduct!as!someone!who!has!done!a!lot!in!order!to!make!sure!that!
the! private! data! of! EU! citizens! is! protected.! The! Commissioner!
emphasises! that! she! “has! immediately! taken! action”! following! the!
appearance!of! the! “first! allegations! in!the! press”;! that! she!was!firm!in!

R*%),P+4)%%&-,
,
!
510!
requesting! explanations! from! US! officials;! that! she! called! them,! sent!
them!letters!and! met!with!them!in!person! to!obtain!more! information;!
that!she!“insisted”! to!have!written!confirmation! of!the!information!she!
received!…!etc.!!
Here! we! have! an! example! of! those! argumentative! moves! that!
contribute!to!two!discussions!and!to!two!political!processes!at!the!same!
time.! Taking! both! processes! into! account! and! reconstructing! the!
argumentative! exchanges! as! part! of! two! simultaneous! discussions!
(Mohammed,! 2015)! sheds! better! light! on! some! important! strategic!
choices! made! in! the! debate.! In! particular,! it! helps! us! understand! the!
Commissioner’s!strategic!choice! to!detail! the!description! of!the! efforts!
she! has! made! in!investigating! the! alleged! spying.! The! detailed!
descriptions!of!the!Commissioner!make!more!sense!once!we!understand!
that! the! Commissioner! is! not! just! refuting! the! opponent’s! claim! that!
XTX2, /4+$A-, ;&, /$/7&'-&-!but! also,! maybe! even! more! importantly,!
defending! her! conduct.! After! all,! had! the! Commissioner! been! only!
interested!in! asserting!that! there!is!no! evidence!that! the!NSA! is!spying!
on! EU! citizens,! it! would! have! been! enough! to! cite! findings! of!
investigations!conducted.!There!would!have!been!no!need!to!emphasise!
that! she! herself! has! made! all! this! effort! to! investigate! had! the!
Commissioner!not!been!interested!in!defending!her!conduct.!!
Reconstructing!the!exchange!into!simultaneous!discussions!also!
sets! the! ground!for! an! assessment! of! the! quality! of! an! argumentative!
move! in! a! way! where! rationality! and! reasonableness! can! be!
distinguished.!Let!us!take,!for!example,!the!move!of!listing!in!detail!the!
actions!taken!by!the!Commissioner.!The!rationality!of!this!move!can!be!
evaluated!by!assessing!its! contribution!to!the!critical!testing!of! each!of!
the! standpoints! it! defends.! We! have! here! two! standpoints! (in! two!
simultaneous! discussions)! defended! by! this! move,! so! we! have! two!
judgments! of! rationality.! In! the! discussion! about! the! conduct! of! the!
Commission,!the!move!counts!as!a!relevant!defence!for!the!standpoint;!
in! this! discussion,! it! is! a! rational! move.! In! the! discussion! about! the!
suspension!of! the!TFTP,! the!move! is!not!as! relevant!for! the!defence! of!
the!standpoint;!in!this!discussion,!we!may!say!that!it!is!a!mild!*#'+")(*+,
&A&'04*,!i.e.!an! argument!that!does! not!really! justify!the! standpoint!it! is!
supposed! to! justify.! As! a! result! of! its! being! a! rational! move! in! the!
discussion!about!the!conduct!of!the!Commission,!the!move!furthers!the!
exercise! of! accountability! over! the! Commission.! But! as! a! result! of! it!
being!irrational!in!the!discussion!about!the!suspension!of!the!TFTP,!the!
move! does! not! advance! the! deliberation! about! the! future! course! of!
action.!!
Is! the! move! then! reasonable! or! not?! Well,! here! contextual!
consideration! would! need! to! guide! us! in! seeking! a! synthesis! of! the!

Z+(,M$/(,")(*+')A9,;$(,)A/+,"&)/+');A&,
,
!
511!
assessments!across-discussions.!I!would!say,!in!this!case,!we!may!think!
that! the! two! processes! (deliberation! and! accountability)! are! equally!
important,! both! are!characteristic! of! the! venue! and! we! have! no!
indication! that!one! is!more!important!than!the! other.! That!means!that!
we!do!not!need!to!make!the!judgment!of!rationality!in!one!overrule!the!
other!(no!hierarchy!of!norms).!Instead,!we!may!consider!the!gravity!of!
the!problem!the!move!causes!in!the!discussion!where!it!is!not!rational.!
In! this!case,! the! hindrance!to! the! critical! testing! is! mild,! and! so! is! the!
hindrance! to! deliberation.! Consequently,! overall,! and! taking! the! two!
processes!into! account,! the! move! can! be! considered! fairly! reasonable.!
This!judgment!reflects!the!overall!quality! of!the!move,!its! contribution!
to! the! different! socio-political! processes! it! is! part! of,! based! on! the!
quality! of! the! critical! testing! (i.e.! argumentative! norm)! in! relation! to!
each.!
!
5.!CONCLUSION!
!
I! started! this! paper! by! highlighting! a! com plication! that! faces! us! when!
assessing!public!political!arguments.!On!the!one!hand!it!is!important!to!
take! the! multiple! functions,! uses! and! purposes! of! an! argument! into!
account.!But!on!the!other!hand,!the!different!goals!of!argumentation!are!
not!always!in! harmony,!and! we!do! not!have! clear!criteria!for! deciding!
which!ones!to!consider!more!important!in! case!of!conflict.!In! order!to!
solve!this!complication,!I!proposed!to!distinguish!between!the!different!
types! of! goals! of! argumentation,! especially! between! argumentation’s!
intrinsic!functions,!on!the!one!hand,!and!its!extrinsic!uses!and!purposes,!
on!the!other!hand.!Each!type!of!goals!warrants!different!types!of!norms.!
All! the! norms!are! relevant! albeit! differently.! On! the! basis! of! this!
distinction,! I! also! proposed! to! distinguish! between! the! judgment! of!
rationality! and! the! judgment! of! reasonableness.! The! former! based! on!
intrinsic!norms,!the!latter!on!extrinsic!ones.!The!two!are!distinguishable!
(it! is! important! not! to! merge! them)! but! not! totally! independent! (it! is!
important! to! adopt! a! perspective! from! which! there! is! synchrony!
between!them).!!
Applying!these!distinctions!needs!to!be!made!from!a!perspective!
on! public! political! arguments! where! the! critical! testing! intrinsic! to!
arguments!is!in! the!service!of! socio-political!processes.!As! a!result,!we!
can!have!distinguishable!assessments,!each!related!to!each!of!the!socio-
political!processes! to!which! the! argument! contributes.!We! are! able! to!
explain! the! positive! or! negative! socio-political! consequences! of! an!
argument! in! the! argumentative! procedure.! And! we! are! also! able! to!
synthesise! the! different! judgments! into! one! overall! assessment! if!
needed.!!

R*%),P+4)%%&-,
,
!
512!
Despite!these!merits,!it’s!most!important!to!acknowledge!this!is!
work-in-progress! that! needs! to! be! refined,! and! which! needs! to! be!
applied!to! more! cases,! more! suitable,! and! m ore! interesting.! The! point!
would!be!to! show! how!exactly!the!distinction!between!rationality!and!
reasonableness!indeed! brings!us!to!non-fragmented!and! yet!consistent!
and!meaningful!assessments!of!public!political!arguments.!
!
!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:! I! acknowledge! the! financial! support! of! the!
Portuguese!Fundação!para!a!Ciência!e!a!Tecnologia!(FCT)!through!grant!
no.!SFRH/BPD/76149/2011.!!
!
!
REFERENCES!
!
BBC!News.!(2013).!The!week!ahead!at!the!European!Parliament.!Retrieved!on!
26! October! 2013! from! 4((71jjKKK?;;0?0+?$Jj'&K/j$JC7+A*(*0/C
<WW5D>>>.!
Bermejo-Luque,! L.! (2010).! Intrinsic! versus! instrumental! values! of!
argumentation:! The! rhetorical! dimension! of! argumentation.!
!"#$%&'()(*+',!<W(4),!453-474.!
Cohen,! D.! (2011).! Reasonableness,! Rationality,! and! Argumentation! Theory.!
Presentation! at! the! B'(&"')(*+')A, 8+AA+c$*$%1, B'/*-&, !"#$%&'(/9,
Coimbra,!Portugal,!March!24,!2011.!
Eemeren,! F.H.! van.! (2010).! Y(")(&#*0,%)'&$G&"*'#, *', )"#$%&'()(*G&, -*/0+$"/&1,
6_(&'-*'#,(4&,7")#%)C-*)A&0(*0)A,(4&+"H,+3,)"#$%&'()(*+'.!Amsterdam:!
John!Benjamins.!!
Eemeren,!F.!H.! van,!&! Grootendorst,! R.!(1987).!Fallacies!in! pragma-dialectical!
perspective.!!"#$%&'()(*+',!5(3),!283-301.!!
Eemeren,! F.! H.! van,! &! Grootendorst,! R.! (2004).! !, /H/(&%)(*0, (4&+"H, +3,
)"#$%&'()(*+'1, X4&, 7")#%)C-*)A&0(*0)A, )77"+)04.! Cambridge:!
Cambridge!University!Press.!
Eemeren,! F.! H.! van,! &! Houtlosser,! P.! (2008).! Rhetoric! in! a! dialectical!
framework:! Fallacies! as! derailments! of! strategic! manoeuvring.! In! E.!
Weigand!(Ed.),!R*)A+#$&,)'-,.4&(+"*0!(pp.!133-151).!Amsterdam:!John!
Benjamins.!!
European!Parliament.!(2013).!Suspension!of!the!SWIFT! agreement! as!a!result!
of! NSA! surveillance! (debate).! Retrieved! on! 2! December! 2013! from!
4((71jjKKK?&$"+7)"A?&$"+7)?&$j/*-&/j#&(R+0?-+h(H7&{8.6a"&3&"&'0&{
<=5[5==Da/&0+'-.&3{BX6PC=5DaA)'#$)#&{6Z.!
Goodwin,!J.!(2007).!Argument!has!no!function.!B'3+"%)A,:+#*0,,<d(1),!69-90.!
Habermas,!J.!(1984).!X4&,(4&+"H,+3,0+%%$'*0)(*G&,)0(*+'?,@+A?,51,.&)/+',)'-,(4&,
")(*+')A*I)(*+',+3,/+0*&(H?!Boston:!Beacon!Press.!!
Jacobs,!S.!(1989).!Speech!acts!and!arguments.!!"#$%&'()(*+',![(4),!345-365.!
Johnson9, R.! H.! (2000).! P)'*3&/(, ")(*+')A*(H1, !, 7")#%)(*0, (4&+"H, +3, )"#$%&'(.!
Mahwah,!NJ:!Lawrence!Erlbaum!Associates.!

Z+(,M$/(,")(*+')A9,;$(,)A/+,"&)/+');A&,
,
!
513!
Mohammed,!D.!(2015).!Goals!in!argumentation:!A!proposal!for!the!analysis!and!
evaluation! of! public! political! arguments.! !"#$%&'()(*+',! online! first,!
doi:!10.1007/s10503-015-9370-6.!
Patterson,! S.! (2011).! Functionalism,! normativity! and! the! concept! of!
argumentation.!B'3+"%)A,:+#*09,[5(1),!1-25.!!
Toulmin,!S.!E.!(1958).!X4&,$/&/,+3,)"#$%&'(.!Cambridge:!Cambridge!University!
Press.!
Walton,!D.,!&!Krabbe,!E.!C.!W.!(1995).!8+%%*(%&'(,*',-*)A+#$&1,N)/*0,0+'0&7(/,+3,
*'(&"7&"/+')A,"&)/+'*'#?!Albany:!SUNY!Press.!
!
!
APPENDIX!
!
The!introductory!statement!of!Commissioner!Malmström!
!
Madam!President,!ladies!and!gentlemen,!I!am!here!tonight!to!inform!you!about!
the! actions! I! have! decided! to! take! following! the! press! allegations! about! the!
possible!access!of!the!US!National!Security!Agency!(NSA)!to!the!data!exchange!
through!the!EU-US!Terrorist!Finance!Tracking!Programme!(TFTP)!Agreement.!
On!24!September!I!met!many!of!you!in!the!LIBE!Committee!and!informed!you!
about!the!ongoing!efforts!to!follow!up!on!this!matter,!which!is!of!course!of!great!
concern.!The!discussions!in!LIBE!were!helpful!and!confirmed!the!need!to!clarify!
a!number!of!issues.!
Since! the! first! allegations! appeared! in! the! press,! as! I! told! you! then,! I! have!
immediately!taken!action.!In!July,!I!sent!a!first!letter!to!my!US!counterpart,!and!
on!11!September!I!called!on!the!Under-Secretary!for!the!Treasury!Department,!
Mr!Cohen,!and!told!him!that!I! was!waiting!for! substantial!information!on! the!
alleged!tapping.!The!next!day!I!also!sent!him!a!letter,!in!which!I!requested!the!
opening!of!consultations!under!Article!19!of!the!TFTP!Agreement.!As!you!know,!
this! is! the! procedure! that! is! regulated! in! the! agreement! in! case! there! are!
questions!or!things!that!need!to!be!clarified.!
In! reply! to! my! letter! –! and! I! shared! the! letter! with! the! LIBE! committee! on!
23!September! –! the! US! Authority! provided! some! explanations.! But! several!
important!questions!remained!unanswered.!I!therefore,!this!Monday,!met!with!
Under-Secretary!Cohen! in! Brussels!and! I!appreciate! that! he!came! despite!the!
budgetary!constraints.!We!had!open!and!very!long!discussions!and!he!clarified!
a!number!of!points.!
During!that!meeting,!Under-Secretary!Cohen!explicitly!confirmed!that!since!the!
entry!into!force! of!the!TFTP! Agreement!the! US! Government!has! not!collected!
financial!messaging!from!SWIFT!in!the!EU.!He!also!said!that!the!US!Government!
has!not!served!any!subpoenas!on!SWIFT!in!the!EU!during!that!period.!I!insisted!
to!have!that!very!important!confirmation!statement!confirmed!in!writing.!
We!also!discussed!in!some!detail!the!established!channels!through!which!the!
US! does! obtain! financial! information! in! SWIFT! format! used! by! financial!
institutions!worldwide.!Also!on!this,!I!asked!for!further!explanations!in!writing,!
in!order! to! be!absolutely! sure!that! these!mechanisms! do!not! conflict!with! the!
TFTP!Agreement.!

R*%),P+4)%%&-,
,
!
514!
At!this!stage,!therefore,!our!contacts!with!SWIFT!and!the!US!Government!have!
not! really! given! any! evidence! that! the! TFTP! Agreement! had! been! violated.!
Some! further! clarifications! are,! however,! needed! before! we! can! draw! full!
conclusions.!Concluding!the!consultations!with!the!US!remains!on!the!top!of!my!
agenda!and!also!for!my!staff!and!we!intend!to!do!our!best!to!get!all!information!
needed!in!the!very!near!future.!
Of! course,! I! will! make! sure! that! you! are! fully! informed! about! future!
developments!at!the!outcome!of!these!consultations.!

!
!
D.!Mohammed!&!M.!Lewiński!(eds.)!(2016).!!"#$%&'()(*+',)'-,.&)/+'&-,!0(*+'1,2"+0&&-*'#/,+3,(4&,5/(,
6$"+7&)',8+'3&"&'0&,+',!"#$%&'()(*+'9,:*/;+'9,<=5>?,@+A?,B9,>5>C>5D?!London:!College!Publications.,
515!
!
!
How!to!Be!a!Better!Functionalist.!
Commentary!on!Mohammed’s!!
Not!Just!Rational,!But!Also!Reasonable!
!
JEAN!GOODWIN!
B+K),Y()(&,F'*G&"/*(H9,FY!,
#++-K*'L*)/()(&?&-$,,
!
!
1.!INTRODUCTION!!
!
"Argument! has!no! function"! (Goodwin,! 2007)!remains!a! thesis! I!stand!
ready! to! defend.! My! aim! in! nailing! it! to! argumentation! theory's! front!
door!was!in!part!to! encourage!increased!sophistication!in! functionalist!
theorizing.! It! is! easy! to! say! that! "an! argument! is! good! if! it! fulfils! its!
purpose,"!but!a!cloud! of!vagueness! hovers!around! that!little!'it.'!In! the!
paper! I! here! respond! to,! and! in! other! work! within! the! same! project!
(2015),!Dima!Mohammed!makes!significant! advances!in!dispelling!that!
vagueness,!through!(a)!thinking!systematically!about!the!kinds!of!telos-
stuff! that! can! be! associated! with! kinds! of! argument-stuff,! and! (b)!
thinking!through!how!to!integrate! the!normative!standards!that!can!be!
derived!from!them.!
!
2.!SORTING!THINGS!OUT!
!
Function!theorists!have!not!infrequently!been!guilty!of!loose!talk!about!
the! aim,! goal,! end,! purpose,! function,! etc.! (in! general,! "telos-stuff")! of!
argumentation,! arguments,! arguing,! various! kinds! of! argumentative!
transactions,! etc.! (in! general,! "argument-stuff").! Mohammed! does! the!
field! the! great! service! of! clearing! the!way! towards! much! greater!
precision.!I'm! not!sure!that!all!her! terminology!will!catch!on,!since!the!
ordinary!meanings!of!words!like!"use"!and!"purpose"!will!likely!win!out.!
Nevertheless,!the! chart!she! has! developed! deserves!our! attention.!She!
identifies!two!distinct!dimensions!to!any!function!claim.!First,!telos-stuff!
must!be! distinguished!as! intrinsic!or! extrinsic.!Second,!argument-stuff!
must! be! identified,! as! either! the! individual! act! of! arguing! or! as! the!
collective!argumentative!interaction.!
Every!function!theorist!should!have!to!assign!their!claims!to!the!
boxes!Mohammed!has!devised.!In!the!meantime,!while!we!wait!for!their!

E&)',n++-K*',
,
!
516!
responses,! the! chart! enables! us! to! start! asking! useful! questions.! For!
example:!
(a)! Regarding! intrinsic! v.! extrinsic.! Mohammed! identifies! the!
goals! of! Waltonian! dialogue! types! as! &_("*'/*0!purposes! of!
argumentative! interactions.! That's! interesting;! my! impression! is! that!
Walton!puts!forward!these!goals!as!*'("*'/*0!functions.! As! Mohammed!
notes!(n.!2),!ambiguity!on!this!point!is!one!of!the!theory's!weaknesses.!
Our! differing! interpretations! of! Waltonian! theory! raise! a! more!
interesting! question,! however.! That! is:! 4+K, -+, K&, (&AA, K4&(4&", /+%&,
7)"(*0$A)",(&A+/C/($33,\)*%9,&'-9,7$"7+/&9,)'-,/+,+'^,*/,*'-&&-,*'("*'/*09,*?&?,
), 3$'0(*+'h—as! opposed! to! being! merely! extrinsic,! one! among! likely!
many!uses!or!goals?!I!raised!this!question!in!§3! of!my!original!article;!
Mohammed's!chart!makes!the!question!all!the!more!pressing.!
Mohammed's!own!discussion!suggests!that!a!piece!of!telos-stuff!
is!intrinsic!if!it!is!a!"goal![…]!of!argumentation!in!and!of!itself!and!in!any!
context"!(2015).!This!appears!in!part!to!be!an!empirical!test:!we!need!to!
examine!argument-stuff!as!it!appears!across!a!variety!of!contexts;!if!we!
observe!telos-stuff! T!throughout,! then! we!have! evidence!that! that! T! is!
indeed! *'("*'/*0.! The! problem! is! that! when! we! look! at! argument-stuff,!
we!observe! lots!of! variety!and!little!uniformity.!I! suspect!that! for!any!
asserted!T,!an!example!of!actual!usage!can!be!found!that!doesn't!contain!
it.! The! paper! Innocenti! and! I! have! submitted! to! this! volume! puts!
forward!one!such!example!against!a!large!range!of!asserted!functions.!Of!
course,!any!example!of!argument-stuff!can!probably!be!"&0+'/("$0(&-!to!
exhibit! T.! But! what! drives! the! reconstruction! is! a! foundational!
assumption!that!that!T!is!indeed!intrinsic.!That!reasoning!is!circular.!
Mohammed's! chart! shows! that! a! wide! range! of! telos-stuff! has!
been! asserted! to! be! intrinsic.! Figuring! out! how! to! justify! any! of! these!
assertions!is!a!key!task!facing!function!theorists.!
(b)!Regarding!individual! v.!collective.!Being!precise!about!what!
argument-stuff!is!being!talked!about!is!the!single!most!important!thing!
we! could! do! to! reduce! confusion! and! talk-at-cross-purposes! among!
argumentation!theorists.!I!admit!I!might!quibble!with!Mohammed's!two!
categories;!in! particular,!the! "act! of!arguing"! seems! to!me! to!be! better!
described!as!the! "activity!of!making!arguments."! However,!the!general!
thrust! of! Mohammed's! proposal! is! invaluable.! Each! of! us! should! take!
responsibility!for!being!explicit!at!all!times!about!exactly!what!aspect!of!
argument-stuff!we!are!discussing.!
Mohammed's! chart! does! have! one! conspicuously! odd! feature,!
however.! In! addition! to! separate! categories! for! argument-acts! and!
argumentative-interactions,!the!"intrinsic"! side!has! a!third! column,!the!
"constitutive!aim!of!argumentation."!This!strikes!me!as!problematic.!The!
word! "argumentation"! in! English! is! rare! in! ordinary! usage.! To! me,! it!

8+%%&'()"H,+',P+4)%%&-,
,
!
517!
conveys!nothing!more!than!a!vague!sense!of!what!I've!here!been!calling!
"argument-stuff":! anything! relevant! to! the! making! and! exchanging! of!
arguments,! including! the! arguments! themselves,! activities! and! inter-
activities! involving! arguments,! the! arguers! (their! virtues,! traits,!
cognitive!processing! and!planning),! institutions! hosting!argumentative!
activities! and! inter-activities,! language! registers! associated! with!
arguments,!and!on!and!on.! The!only!place!I'm!really!comfortable!using!
the! term! "argumentation"! is! in! referring! to! argumentation! theory! or!
studies,!which!is!a!theory!about!or!study!of!any!or!all!of!this!argument-
stuff.!In!these!two!usages,!the!vagueness!is!strategic:!it!helps!bring!all!of!
us!to!the!same!wonderful!conference.!Everywhere!else,!it!is!a!disaster.1!
The! vagueness! of! the! column! about! the! "constituent! aim! of!
argumentation"! stands! in! contrast! with! the! determinacy! of! the!
individual! and! collective! activities! Mohammed! distinguishes.! Some!
theorists! undoubtedly! embrace! that! vagueness.! I! feel! relatively!
confident,!for!example,!that!Ralph!Johnson!really!did!mean!to!include!all!
argument-stuff!in! his!claim!that! the!practice!of! argumentation!had!the!
constituent! aim! of! making! rationality! manifest! in! the! world.! I! am! less!
confident,! however,! about! what! it! would! mean! for! all! this! argument-
stuff! to! be! aimed! at! justification.! This! raises! the! question:! Function!
theorists! who! assert! what! Mohammed! has! designated! a! "constituent!
aim!of!argumentation,"!K4)(,-+,H+$,%&)'h!
!
3.!PUTTING!THINGS!BACK!TOGETHER!
!
Argument-stuff! in! important! contexts! is! complex.! Mohammed! shares!
the! interest! traditional! to! rhetorical! approaches! in! "public! political!
arguments,"! and! recognizes! that! they! inevitably! "arise! in! response! to!
competing! demands."! Citizens'! responsibilities! have! a! "multi-
dimensional!nature,"!she! points!out;!citizens! also! have!multiple! needs,!
desires! and! interests,! and! are! acting! within! civic! institutions! that! are!
themselves! subject! to! multiple! expectations.! Any! halfway! respectable!
function!theory!is! going!to!have!to! respect!this!complexity!while!at!the!
same! time! producing! *'(&#")(&-!or! "synchronous"! accounts! of! civic!
argument-stuff.!
Mohammed! is! confident! that! the! normative! standards! derived!
from! the! extrinsic! purposes! of! argumentative! interactions! can! be!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!I!am!aware!that!the!word!"argumentation"!(or!similar)!in!other!languages!has!
a! more! determinate! meaning—often,! an! extended! sequence! of! arguments! on!
one!topic,!something!like!what!in!English!would!be!called!a! "case."!It!does!not!
look! to! me,! however,! like! theorists! who! speak! of! the! "function! of!
argumentation"!are!using!the!word!in!that!sense;!I!await!correction.!

E&)',n++-K*',
,
!
518!
reconciled!with!those!derived!from!their!intrinsic!function.!For!example,!
an! argument! that! makes! a! good! contribution!to! critically! testing! a!
standpoint!should,!by!that!very!goodness,!also!make!a!good!contribution!
to! making! a! decision! or! holding! an! official! accountable.! Mohammed!
considers!that! the!more! serious!challenge! is! integrating!the! normative!
standards! derived! from!different! and! sometimes! competing! extrinsic!
purposes—e.g.,! somehow! fitting! together! the! potentially! dilemmatic!
purposes!of!decision-making!and!accountability.!!
Mohammed! proposes! calling! the! intrinsic/functional! goodness!
of! arguments! "rationality,"! and! the!extrinsic/purposive! goodness! of!
arguments,! "reasonableness."! Will! this! proposed! vocabulary! stick?! It!
has! some! plausibility:! a! charge! of! irrationality! seems! harsher! than! a!
charge!of!being!unreasonable—more!connected!with!the!person's!basic!
orientation! to! reason,! more! "intrinsic."! On! the! other! hand,! there! also!
seem!to! be!some! drawbacks!to! the!proposal.! For!one! thing,!rationality!
seems! to!be! a! binary:! an! argument! is!rational! or! it! isn't.!But! as! Ralph!
Johnson!long! ago!pointed!out,! arguments! are!assessed! on!a! scale:!they!
are!generally!more!or!less!good.!Reasonableness!does!allow!degrees,!so!
it! doesn't! share! that! problem.! But! to! say! a! person's! conduct! is!
reasonable! is,! as! Rawls! points! out,! to! make! a! specific! kind! of!
assessment:!it's!saying!it!is!making!a!3)*"!contribution!to!common!life.!In!
functionalist!theorizing,!an!argument! is!good!if!it!makes!)!contribution!
to! achieving! an! extrinsic! purpose;! 3)*"'&//!would! seem! to! be! an!
additional! requirement.! And! it's! not! clear! that! fairness! even! makes!
sense! for! all! extrinsic! purposes;! what,! for! example,! would! be! a! fair!
contribution!to!an!eristic!dialogue?!Whether!or!not!the!proposed!terms!
stick,! however,! at! least! Mohammed's! analysis! has! made! clear! the!
different!yet!integrated!roles!different!telos-stuff!can!play!in! argument!
assessment.!
!
4.!CONCLUSION!
!
I! remain! opposed! to! functional! approaches! to! constructing! normative!
theories!of!argument-stuff;!I!think! there!are!better!ways!forward.!With!
that! understood,! I! recommend:! function! theorists! need! to! respond! to!
the! challenges! Mohammed! advances! in! this! project,! continuing! to!
develop! function! theories! that! are! more! precise,! better! defended,! and!
more!responsive!to!real-world!complexities.!
!
!
!
!
!

8+%%&'()"H,+',P+4)%%&-,
,
!
519!
REFERENCES!
!
Goodwin,!J.!(2007).!Argument!has!no!function.!B'3+"%)A,:+#*0,!<d,!69–90.!
Mohammed,!D.!(2015).!Goals!in!argumentation:!A!proposal!for!the!analysis!and!
evaluation! of! public! political! arguments.! !"#$%&'()(*+'.! Online! first!
(doi:!10.1007/s10503-015-9370-6).!