Being reasonable

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Where do the rules of critical discussion get their normative force? What kinds of norms are involved? Unreasonable behaviour in the critical discussion - e.g., continuing to assert the contradictory of a proven standpoint, performing some action pragmatically inconsistent with a proven standpoint, or the same with regard to the starting-points agreed to in the opening stage - is liable to moral sanction. Thus, a moral/ethical norm is involved and the rules must have a moral force. Pragma-dialectics as it stands does not seem to account for this moral force. I will attempt to fill this gap in pragma-dialectical theory.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)17-36
Number of pages20
JournalStudies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric
Issue number55
Publication statusPublished - 2015


  • Co-operation
  • Collective intentionality
  • Normativity
  • Pragma-dialectics
  • Strategic maneuvering


Dive into the research topics of 'Being reasonable'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this