Preproceedings 2006 - Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society

Persons can also have beliefs about goals and
actions. These beliefs can fulfil a specific function for the
actions of a person. If a person has a certain goal and
believes that she can attain the goal by performing a
specific action, the person would act incoherently
according to her belief and her goal if she would not
perform this action or would perform a different action
instead. Hence I define:
Definition 5: If a person P1 has a goal G1 and believes
that she can attain G1 by performing the action A1, P1 is
subjectively coherent iff P1 performs A1 with the purpose
of attaining G1.
The person is insofar subjectively coherent as the
person believes that the action will lead to the attained
goal. A subjectively coherently person acts objectively
coherently iff her belief that the action will lead to the goal
is true. Subjectively coherent persons can be regarded as
acting to the best of their knowledge.
My thesis is that under normal circumstances
persons who have goals act according to their beliefs
about how to reach the goals. Hence persons normally are
subjectively coherent. Therefore people are not
automatically objectively coherent. They are only
objectively coherent if their beliefs about how to reach their
goals are true.
Objective Coherence in Argumentation Situations
The general theories about goals, beliefs and coherent
actions also hold for people who are involved in
argumentation situations. The function of argumentations
is that one person presents a rational argument whose
premises are justified and another person believes the
justified conclusion of the argument because of the
argument. In an argumentation situation the actions which
P1 performs is to present the argument and the actions
which P2 can perform is to believe the conclusion of the
argument. Hence it follows: If P1 has the goal that the
argumentation fulfils its function, P1 is objectively coherent
iff P1 is objectively rational. If P2 has the same goal, P2 is
objectively coherent iff P2 is objectively unprejudiced.
Subjective Coherence in Argumentation Situations
I will next focus on persons in argumentation situations
who are subjectively coherent. According to the given
definitions this is the case if both persons act according to
their beliefs about the rationality of the argument.
Subjective coherence of an arguing person:
Definition 6: P1 is subjectively rational iff P1 believes that
every premise of Ai is justified and P1 believes that Ai is
a rational argument.
From this definition follows:
If P1 has the goal that the argumentation situation fulfils
its function, P1 is subjectively coherent iff P1 is
subjectively rational.
Subjective coherence of a Person to whom an
argument is presented:
Definition 7: A person P2 is subjectively unprejudiced iff
it holds: P2 believes the conclusion of Ai because of Ai iff
P2 firstly believes that every premise of Ai is justified and
secondly believes that Ai is a rational argument.
196
On the Limits of Intercultural Argumentation - Guido Melchior
From these two definitions follows:
If P2 has the goal that the argumentation situation fulfils
its function, P2 is subjectively coherent iff P2 is
subjectively unprejudiced.
Subjectively rational persons and subjectively
unprejudiced persons can be regarded as persons, who
act best to their knowledge in argumentation situations.
From the given definition follows: If the beliefs of a
subjectively rational person about the justification of the
premises and the rationality of the argument are true, the
person is objectively rational. The analogous thesis holds
for subjectively unprejudiced persons.
A subjectively rational person and a subjectively
unprejudiced person share the same goal of a functioning
argumentation situation and act subjectively coherent in
respect of this goal. Since these persons have the right
goal and act according to their beliefs about how to reach
the goal but not necessarily according to the objective
facts, such argumentation situations can be regarded as
subjectively ideal. Hence the following definition can be
given:
Definition 8: An argumentation situation AS is
subjectively ideal iff P1 is subjectively rational and P2 is
subjectively unprejudiced.
Persons normally act subjectively coherent. Since
persons normally have the goal that an argumentation
situation fulfils its function persons in argumentation
situations are normally subjectively rational respectively
subjectively unprejudiced. Hence, argumentation situations
tend to be subjectively ideal.
Theses about the Subjective Aspects of
Argumentation
Form the definition of a subjectively ideal argumentation
situation it follows: If an argumentation situation is
subjectively ideal it holds:
1. P1 believes that every premise of Ai is justified and
that Ai is a rational argument.
2. P2 believes the conclusion of Ai because of Ai iff P2
believes that every premise of Ai is justified and that
Ai is a rational argument.
From these theories follows the central thesis of my
argumentation:
For every subjectively ideal argumentation situation
holds: P2 believes the conclusion of Ai because of Ai iff
P1 and P2 believe that every premise of Ai is justified and
that Ai is a rational argument, i.e. P1 and P2 have the
same beliefs about the justification of the premises and
the rationality of the argument.
If two persons have the goal to act correctly in an
argumentation situation, they act to the best of their
knowledge if they act according to their beliefs about how
to attain this goal. Even under these ideal circumstances
the argumentation will only succeed if the persons have
the same views abut the justification of premises and the
rationality of arguments. They will fail if they have different
beliefs about justification and rationality. An obvious
reason why argumentations can fail is that one of the
involved persons is not willing to accept the argument. This
thesis shows that the possibility of successful
argumentation is also limited if the persons act to the best
of their knowledge.