Diabolical devil’s advocates and the weaponization of illocutionary force

Giulia Terzian, María Inés Corbalán

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

A standing presumption in the literature is that devil’s advocacy is an inherently beneficial argumentative move; and that those who take on this role in conversation are paradigms of argumentative virtue. Outside academic circles, however, devil’s advocacy has acquired something of a notorious reputation: real-world conversations are rife with self-proclaimed devil’s advocates who are anything but virtuous. Motivated by this observation, in this paper we offer the first in-depth exploration of non-ideal devil’s advocacy. We draw on recent analyses of two better known discursive practices—mansplaining and trolling—to illuminate some of the signature traits of vicious devil’s advocacy. Building on this comparative examination, we show that all three practices trade on a manipulation of illocutionary force; and we evaluate their respective options for securing plausible deniability.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-27
Number of pages27
JournalThe Philosophical Quarterly
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 2 May 2024

Keywords

  • Public discourse
  • Devil’s advocacy
  • Mansplaining
  • Trolling
  • Conversational ethics
  • Plausible deniability

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Diabolical devil’s advocates and the weaponization of illocutionary force'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this