Ad Misericordiam Revisited
The paper discusses the nature and functioning of argumentum ad misericordiam, a well-known but less theorised type of argument. A monograph by D. Walton (1997) offers an overview of definitions of misericordia (which he eventually translates as ‘pity’), as well as the careful analysis of several ca...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Sciendo
2018-09-01
|
| Series: | Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2018-0031 |
| _version_ | 1831641760487440384 |
|---|---|
| author | Könczöl Miklós |
| author_facet | Könczöl Miklós |
| author_sort | Könczöl Miklós |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The paper discusses the nature and functioning of argumentum ad misericordiam, a well-known but less theorised type of argument. A monograph by D. Walton (1997) offers an overview of definitions of misericordia (which he eventually translates as ‘pity’), as well as the careful analysis of several cases. Appeals to pity, Walton concludes, are not necessarily fallacious. This view seems to be supported and further refined by the critical remarks of H. V. Hansen (2000), as well as the recent work of R. H. Kimball (2001, 2004) and A. Aberdein (2016) focusing on the virtue ethical aspects of such arguments. There is, on this account, a difference between ad misericordiam arguments and fallacies, even though the former may be fallacious in some cases. In this paper I argue for a narrower concept of ad misericordiam, as distinguished from the more generic class of appeals to pity, limiting it to cases in which someone asks for the non-application of a certain rule, clearly relevant to their case, with reference to some (unfavourable) circumstance, which is, however, irrelevant for the application of the rule. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-19T12:30:19Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-dfdc2cb813294669ad92764b7b7f7054 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0860-150X 2199-6059 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-19T12:30:19Z |
| publishDate | 2018-09-01 |
| publisher | Sciendo |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric |
| spelling | doaj.art-dfdc2cb813294669ad92764b7b7f70542022-12-21T20:21:25ZengSciendoStudies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric0860-150X2199-60592018-09-0155111512910.2478/slgr-2018-0031slgr-2018-0031Ad Misericordiam RevisitedKönczöl Miklós0Pázmány Péter Catholic University & Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Legal Studie, Budapest, Piliscsaba,Esztergom, HungaryThe paper discusses the nature and functioning of argumentum ad misericordiam, a well-known but less theorised type of argument. A monograph by D. Walton (1997) offers an overview of definitions of misericordia (which he eventually translates as ‘pity’), as well as the careful analysis of several cases. Appeals to pity, Walton concludes, are not necessarily fallacious. This view seems to be supported and further refined by the critical remarks of H. V. Hansen (2000), as well as the recent work of R. H. Kimball (2001, 2004) and A. Aberdein (2016) focusing on the virtue ethical aspects of such arguments. There is, on this account, a difference between ad misericordiam arguments and fallacies, even though the former may be fallacious in some cases. In this paper I argue for a narrower concept of ad misericordiam, as distinguished from the more generic class of appeals to pity, limiting it to cases in which someone asks for the non-application of a certain rule, clearly relevant to their case, with reference to some (unfavourable) circumstance, which is, however, irrelevant for the application of the rule.https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2018-0031ad misericordiamappeal to pityfallacynormativityfairnessjustice |
| spellingShingle | Könczöl Miklós Ad Misericordiam Revisited Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric ad misericordiam appeal to pity fallacy normativity fairness justice |
| title | Ad Misericordiam Revisited |
| title_full | Ad Misericordiam Revisited |
| title_fullStr | Ad Misericordiam Revisited |
| title_full_unstemmed | Ad Misericordiam Revisited |
| title_short | Ad Misericordiam Revisited |
| title_sort | ad misericordiam revisited |
| topic | ad misericordiam appeal to pity fallacy normativity fairness justice |
| url | https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2018-0031 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT konczolmiklos admisericordiamrevisited |