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 language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1311-1337 |
Number of pages | 27 |
Journal | Philosophical Quarterly |
Volume | 74 |
Issue number | 4 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Oct 2024 |
Keywords
- Conversational ethics
- Devil's advocacy
- Mansplaining
- Plausible deniability
- Public discourse
- Trolling