Читать книгу Making Arguments: Reason in Context - Edmond H. Weiss - Страница 26

The logical and rational characteristics of argumentation oblige arguers to be consistent. The boundaries of argumentation are such that an advocate cannot “have it both ways,” arguing P at one point and NOT P at another. Because of the burden of proof (whether assigned or natural to the situation), one party to an argument has a particular obligation to advance a consistent case.

One softening of the requirement for consistency benefits advocates opposed to the resolution (the negative, or the side with presumption). Because such advocates needn’t meet a burden of proof, they can, essentially, “have it both ways,” without compromising the integrity (or consistency) of an argument. A defense attorney might argue: “There is little evidence that my client committed this crime, but you can see that if he did commit this, he was totally justified in his actions, and that his actions should not even be construed as a crime by those standards.”

The prosecution, which has the burden of proof, cannot be this flexible or capricious. The required consistency inherent in the burden of proof would not allow an advocate to advance what are ostensibly incompatible claims. The prosecutor will not argue: “Even though this defendant was justified in his actions, he still needs to be punished.”

The requirement for consistency, a responsibility for all arguers, extends to the smallest level of argument, where each sub-argument needs to be advanced in the context of such exacting standards as non-contradiction. More broadly, however, one side in an argument (the affirmative) appears to need to adhere to a more rigorous standard of consistency; this suggests a certain imbalance, an inevitable consequence of dividing issues along the lines of those who must prove, and those who must defend against that proof. Advocates with a presumption in favor of their position (the defenders) need not be so consistent in their overall position; they may fend off the position of the affirmative in several ways, with independent lines of reasoning, and not worry as much about the internal consistency of their defense.